
Glass i_ 

Book h- 






Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2011 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/statementsubmitt01elli 



A STATEMENT 



SUBMITTED IN RE 



THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA 



TO THE 



HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN 
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 



BY 



HENRY W. ELLIOTT 

DECEMBER 15, 1913 



TO SUPPLEMENT AND COMPLETE THE REPORT AND 
EXHIBITS OF THE SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE HOUSE 
COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES IN THE DEPART- 
MENT OF COMMERCE UPON THE CONDITION OF THE 
FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA AND THE CONDUCT OF 
THE PUBLIC BUSINESS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS, 
AS ORDERED BY THE COMMITTEE JUNE 20, 1913 



5f 



WASHINGTON 
1918 







o. or o, 



^ 



,v 



LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. 



Washington, D. C, December 15, 1913. 
Hon. John H. Rothermel, 

Chairman Committee on Expenditures 
In the Department of Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: I wish to submit for the information and the use of 
your committee a carefully prepared statement of the facts which 
bear upon the commercial ruin and near extinction of our fur-seal 
herd of Alaska. 

I believe that a statement which shall authoritatively cover the 
causes of that destruction of this fine public property and the true 
relation which the lessees of the seal islands and certain sworn 
public officials and others have to that ruin of the same will be of 
value to your committee. 

I therefore inclose this statement herewith, duly addressed to the 
committee and yourself. 

Very respectfully, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 



STATEMENT SUBMITTED IN RE THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF 

ALASKA. 



Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I desire to 
submit for your consideration a concise statement of facts, showing 
the history and condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and the con- 
nection of the officers and stockholders of the North American 
Commercial Co., as lessees, and the officials of the L T nited States 
Government and others therewith since 1890 to date. 

It is first in order to shbw how and why the fur-seal herd of 
Alaska has been commercially destroyed and ruined as an asset of 
value to the Government ever since 1890; I will lead by giving you a 
brief but carefully studied statement of the reasons why this herd 
has been reduced so as to be at the verge of complete extinction 
when the act of August 24, 1912, prevented that end. 

By order of this committee, a careful survey of the herd was made 
by Mr. Gallagher and myself last July. We have given you in our 
report of August 31 last an account in detail of its condition. 

The condition of this herd as we found it last July on its breeding 
rookeries of St. Paul and St. George Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska, is 
one of complete commercial ruin* and of near extinction of virile 
breeding male life. 

Happily the act of August 24, 1912, prevents any repetition of the 
deadly killing of young male seals for the next five years on the islands, 
and makes it unnecessary to call upon Congress for any further 
legislation in the premises until the lapse of this close time thus 
provided for. 

It now becomes in order to clearly show how and why this herd 
of 4,700,000 seals in 1874 has been so managed by our own agents 
as to bring it to the pitiful limit of less than 1,500 breeding bulls in 
1913, as contrasted with 90,000 in 1874 — with less than 30,000 non- 
breeding seals — yearlings and males, 2, 3, 4, 5, and up to 6 years 
old, against 1,250,000 of them in 1874, and less than 80,000 breeding 
cows as against 1,633,000 of them in 1874. 

It is an easy exhibition of cause which I am to give you, as follows: 

I. The fur seal by its law of life breeds but once a year, and then 
during one short period of that year only, viz, between July 4 and 25. 

II. This makes its order of life entirely different from cattle, sheep, 
horses, and swine, with which it has been erroneously contrasted by 
ignorant or scheming "naturalists," who have at great length 
declared it to be similar, when in fact it is utterly and irreconcilably 
different. 

III. That two weeks of the year (between July 4-25) in which all 
of the cows land, give birth to their young (a single pup), and are 
impregnated for another 12 months of gestation, is now admitted to 
be the "height of the season" by every observer who has had several 
seasons of personal study of the question on the rookeries. A few 

5 



D FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

seals are born as early as June 16-24— a few are born as late as 
August 1-5, annually — but these are the natural exceptions to the 
rule of their lives. The fact remains that the breeding of these seals 
is all begun and finished practically between July 4-20 annually — i. e., 
nine-tenths of it. 

IV. This fact determined, then it becomes clear to the investigator 
that the breeding males which serve these breeding cows in that short 
period, annually, and only then, should be the very finest of the 
species, and — 

(a) That they should not be overtaxed by having too many cows 
in their harems at that period aforesaid, and — 

(b) That this natural selection ordered by their law of life, which 
enables only the finest of their kind to get into the rookeries as sires, 
should never be interfered with by man — 

(c) Who himself can not make that selection, as he can of the best 
bulls, rams, stallions, and boars for his herds and flocks in domes- 
tication. 

V. To make this natural selection of the very finest sires for the 
herd, these seals are born equal in number, males and females. The 
male becomes mature and begins to breed when 6 years old — never 
any earlier, and — 

(a) The female becomes mature and receives her first impregnation 
as a "nubile" on the rookery when she is 2 years old. This — 

(b) Brings the female in as a breeder and requiring service four 
years ahead of the male; and that — 

(c) Seems to make the natural life of the male from 15 to 18 years 
and that of the female less, or from 10 to 12 years (reasoning by 
analogy) . 

VI. The breeding males arrive on the rookery grounds from three to 
six weeks in advance of the females ; their habit is to locate thereon, 
at intervals of 7 to 10 feet apart; these locations being made by 
those bulls which can successfully fight for and hold their location 
when obtained, and — 

(a) This fighting between the bulls, which is done by them three 
to six weeks before the cows come, eliminates all of the weaker or 
nerveless bulls before the breeding begins, and — 

(b) So secures for the cows only the very finest sires for the race, 
without any injury to the females or the pups during the breeding 
season, since — 

(c) This fighting for those harem stations aforesaid entirely sub- 
sides when the cows begin to haul out; and — 

(d) This location of the breeding bulls in a normal and natural 
state brings to each bull about 15 or 20 cows to serve, on an average, 
throughout the whole rookery (a few bulls will have harems of 40 or 
50 and a few will only have 4 or 5, perhaps, but the natural normal 
average in 1874 was about 20 cows to a bull on the big rookeries). 

VII. Any disturbance or interference with this natural order and 
adjustment of these laws of breeding as set forth above will throw 
the same out of balance and effect, and thus cause the birth rate 
on the rookeries to become less and less annually, as long as this 
interference is continued, up to the point of complete extinction of 
the species, if it is not discontinued. 

With the above statements of fact clearly in mind, when we turn 
to view the conditions of the Pribilof fur seal herd as it was plain to 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 7 

see last July, we found that this herd consisted of 80,000 breeding 
cows, with only about 750 to 800 breeding bulls in real service on 
the rookeries; the reason for that loss of perfect balance was at 
once looked up. That one bull should have four times the strain 
devolved upon him as a sire, which the natural law of his life orders 
him to endure, is the cause of just concern for the future of this 
species if it is to continue; for that continuation means more and 
more strain added annually until the harems will show 200, 250, yes, 
500 to 1,000 cows to the bull, as they have been shown to the greedy 
Russian agents in 1896; and, soon thereafter, their herd collapsed. 

What was and is the cause of this practical extinction of the virile 
male life on the breeding grounds of the Pribilof Islands ? 

It is due wholly to the killing of all the young male seals that the 
lessees could annually find on the islands, first begun in 1896, in 
violation of regulations or the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, and 
then continued up to 1904, when the Hitchcock rules of May 1 were 
published, but which the lessees nullified completely by 1906, and 
continued to do so to the end of their lease, May 1, 1910. 

A plain statement of the facts which were given to Mr. F. H. 
Hitchcock, chief clerk of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
and upon which he ordered the "Hitchcock rules" of 1904, is of 
interest at this point, to wit: On January 8, 1904, 1 gave him the fol- 
lowing analysis of the reason why he must step in at once and check 
that close killing of all the young male seals which his agents then 
were permitting the lessees to take or face the complete extinction 
of the breeding male life on the islands by 1907 or 1908: 

On the seal island rookeries of St. Paul and St. George there were 
(I wrote thus) — 

In 1872-1874 there were some 90,000 breeding bulls and 1,250,000 cows (primipares, 
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 1,125,000 pups. 

In 1890 this herd was reduced to some 14,000 breeding bulls and about 420.000 
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 380,000 pups. 

In 1896 this herd was still further reduced to some 5,000 bulls and about 144,000 
cows (primipares, multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 130,000 ptrps. 

In 1903 this herd is reduced to some 2,200 bulls and about 75,000 cows (primipares, 
multipares, and nubiles), showing a birth rate of 68.000 pups. 

These 2,200 breeding bulls of 1903 are the survivors of those young males which 
were spared in 1890 and by the modus vivendi of 1891-1893, and thus allowed to 
grow up to the age of 6 years, and then take their places in 1894, 1895, and 1896 on 
the rookeries as 6 and 7 year old " seecatchie. " 

In 1894 and in 1895 a few hundred 4-year-olds may have escaped the club on the 
killing grounds and thus came in as 6-year-olds in 18*96 and 1897. 

But in 1896 no 3-year-old seal was passed over the killing grounds which was not 
killed in 1897 as a 4-year-old. 

And in 1897 and 1898 no 3-year-old seal escaped the killer's club, except to die on 
the killing grounds as a 4-year-old in 1898 and 1899. 

And in 1899 no 2-year-old seal was permitted to escape on these grounds unless to 
die as a 3-year-old in 1900. 

And in 1900 no well-grown yearling seal was spared on these slaughter fields ex- 
cept to perish as a 2-year-old in 1901. 

And in 1901 every yearling that came ashore was taken, and if a few escaped they 
met the club in 1902 sure, as 2-year-olds. 

And in 1902 every young male seal that landed was taken, so that out of 22,199, 
16,875 were "long* - and average yearlings, or "5-pound" or "eyeplaster" skins. 

In this clear light of the close killing of the young male life as given above, it will 
he observed that no young or fresh male blood has been permitted to mature and 
reach the breeding grounds since 1896. 

The average life of a breeding bull is from 15 to 18 years; he does not keep his 
place longer for good and obvious reasons. The youngest bulls to-day upon that 



© FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

breeding ground are not less than 12 years old— most of them older. They are now 
rapidly dying of old age — witness the following: 

An official report in 1902 declares that these breeding bulls had decreased in num- 
ber from 1901 to the end of 1902 at least 25 per cent. 

An official report in 1903 again declares a decrease from 1902 to the end of this 
season (1903) of 17 per cent; 42 per cent since 1901, 

The close of the season of 1904 will show at least 20 per cent reduction again; and 
in 1905 again 20 per cent at least, to entirely cease by 1907 unless steps are taken at 
once to stop the run on this life by land (and sea killing) clubbing in 1904 of the 
choice young male seals, yearlings and upward, to the end of the season of 1906 — 
stop it entirely. 

These facts of biological truth and improper violation of license to 
kill on the islands, as above, were bitterly disputed by Dr. David 
Starr Jordan and his " scientists," who, as hi associates of the Jordan- 
Thompson Commission in 1896-1898, all united in denying them. But 
Mr. Hitchcock was impressed with the truth and sense of my state- 
ment, and issued the orders, or "Hitchcock rules," which checked up 
that close killing I complained of, May 1, 1904. 

Then what happened? On the 26th of October, 1905, the very 
men who, in 1904, had united with Dr. Jordan and his "scientists," 
Stejneger, Lucas, and Townsend, confessed in an elaborate report 
that I was right — that these regulations of Hitchcock's order had 
been made just in time to save the breeding life of the rookeries from 
ruin at the hands of the lessees. Witness the following: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, October 26, 1905. 
Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs 
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905: 

There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that, 
by reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken up before the usual period and 
bachelors were able to haul among the cows. 

This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from 
the breeding grounds by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired 
to haul at all, only on the bachelor's hauling ground. 

This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rook- 
eries generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the 
cows that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls 
been sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred. 

A stop was made at Polovina on our way from Northeast Point on the 21st, and 
Messrs. Judge and Redpath and myself -visited that lookery. We were not able to 
verify our assumption with regard to this rookery. By reason of the flatness of the 
approach to it, only the rearmost harems could be inspected, and those only with 
caution, lest the cows be stampeded. While we found six 2-year old bachelors in 
two small harems at the rear, we found also the harem formations to be much better 
preserved than at Hutchinson Hill. The bulls seemed active in preventing the 
escape of the cows and in rounding them up into their harems. 

The fact, however, remains that only 3 idle bulls were found on this rookery at the 
height of the season. That the bulls present with cows were still able to maintain 
their harems on the 21st is more a tribute to their vitality than proof that enough 
adult males were present. 

^ ;fc =1= * * * * 

As I was taking photographs of the rookeries, I went ahead to make the necessary 
exposures before the formation of the cows should be disturbed by the counting of 
the harems. Mr. Judge followed with two natives and made the count. He stated 
that the bulls were practically docile and that no trouble was experienced in pene- 
trating the mass of seals. He stated, also, that in his opinion the bulls were taxed to 
such an extent as to have virtually lost control of the breeding grounds, and that this 



PUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 9 

was the reason for their unusual amiability. He noted also that a great proportion of 
the supposed cows scattered about were bachelors. 

The result of these regulations can not be felt before 1907, as has in effect been stated. 
During the interval which must elapse before that time a steady decrease in bulls will 
be encountered. The closest killing on land occurred during the seasons of 1902 and 
1903. In the latter season the lessees released from the drives on St. Paul only 983 
small seals. This practical annihilation of bachelors for this year will be felt on the 
rookeries four years thereafter, or in 1907. 

******* 

LIMIT TO PROCREATIVE POWER OF BULLS. 

Much has been said of the wonderful procreative power of bulls, and the theory has 
been advanced that a bull can serve without discomfort as many cows as he is able to 
get and hold. 

Our experience this summer has convinced us that there is a limit to a bull's capacity 
and that the bulls on»the rookeries at the height of the season had come nearer to 
reaching it than ever before to our knowledge. When it was possible on July 13 to 
penetrate the mass of breeding seals on the Reef, and on July 14 that on Zapadni, 
meeting with no more opposition than could be met successfully by two men armed 
with light poles, it must be believed that the bulls at these places were taxed to such 
a limit as to be shorn of most of their aggressiveness. On July 16 Mr. Judge with two 
men went through the mass under Hutchinson Hill on the plateau near the shore line, 
and experienced but little trouble. To have done this five years ago with the same 
mass would have been impossible. 

******* 

The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from 
which not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain 
the requisite proportion of bulls. 

For the last two years, however, regulations have been in force on the islands as the 
result of which a considerable number of bachelors are exempted from killing and 
allowed to escape. The animals thus saved are not old enough to appear upon the 
rookeries. It will be necessary for two more years to elapse before the animals may be 
counted upon. From that time, however, with the continuance of the regulations, 
it is believed that an ample supply of bulls will be present. 

PRESENT REGULATIONS SHOULD BE CONTINUED. 

Since it appears that a scarcity of bulls is threatened on the islands, and, in fact, 
has occurred actually on several of the rookery spaces on St. Paul, any change in the 
present regulations looking to a lessening of the restrictions placed on killing on the 
islands would be wholly unwise. 



Respectfully, 



The Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 



W. I. Lembkey, 
Agent in Charge Seal Islands. 



So much for Mr. Lembkey in 1905. Did he continue these regu- 
lations in 1906, which he says above are absolutely necessary to be 
so continued? No! I had the following to say to your committee 
July 30, 1912, to wit: 

Now, what has become of that "6^-pound" 3-year-old limit by which he has sworn 
he "saved the 3-year-olds" in June and July, to be again "saved " by him as such in 
the autumn following by having this maximum limit of "6£ pounds" put on the 
taking of any "food skins "? Why, they are all killed. 

Mr. Madden. How many people are there on the islands? 

Mr. Elliott. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are 
all killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of "8? pounds"! 
He thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very 
rules of the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce. 

The Hitchcock rules ordered a "permanent mark" to be put upon these reserved 
seals, "and under no circumstances are they to be taken," etc. Why was it not 
done? The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated 
Lembkey as above — they got them. 



10 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



How was that manipulation by Lembkey, in turn, done, so as to 
get those "reserved" seals. I submit the following expose of the 
deceit : 

THE LESSEES SUBORN LEMBKEY AND THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES, AND 
THEN SECURE ALL OF THE "RESERVED" OR " SPARED" SEALS, IN 
VIOLATION OF THE SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE LATTER. 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Lembkey declares that a 62- 
pound limit to food skins is or- 
dered by the bureau, and that 
saves the "reserved" seals from 
subsequent killing by the lessees. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Mr. Chairman, in 
the matter of the nullification of the 
Hitchcock rules, with this evidence duly 
considered by your committee of the 
illegal killing of those yearlings seals in 
1910 (and that evidence of this guilt ap- 
plies to every season's work on the Pribi- 
lof Islands ever since 1890 down to May 
1, 1910), I desire to present the following 
testimony, which declares that ever since 
May 1, 1904, when the "Hitchcock rules " 
were first ordered by the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, those rules have 
been systematically and flagrantly vio- 
lated by the agents of this department 
who were specially sworn to obey and 
enforce them. 

On February 4, 1911, Chief Special 
Agent Lembkey was introduced by 
Secretary Charles Nagel to the United 
States Senate Committee on Conserva- 
tion of National Resources, and during 
his examination by that committee he 
made the following statement, to wit, on 
page 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, 
February 4, 1911, Committee on Con- 
servation of National Resources) : 

Dr. Hornaday. How many "short 2- 
year-olds " were killed last year? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not understand 
your term. No seals under 2 years old, 
to my knowledge, were killed. 

Dr. Hornaday. What would be the 
age of the smallest yearlings taken? 

Mr. Lembkey. Two-year-olds rarely, if 
any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday, 
that a great difference of opinion exists 
between Mr. Elliott and the remaining 
people who understand this situation. 
There is a great gulf between their 
opinions, and it can never be reconciled 
on the question of the weights of skins of 
2-year-olds. 

Prof. Elliott. I will present my in- 
formation in a moment. 

Dr. Hornaday. The minimum weight 
is what? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds. During 
food drives made by the natives, when 



But the official instructions of 
the bureau declare that that 6^- 
pound limit has been raised to 
8 1 pounds, and that Lembkey 
has killed all seals having skins 
under that limit. 

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.] 

Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals. — No seals 
shall be killed having skin weighing less 
than 5 pounds nor more than 8£ pounds. 
Skins weighing mroe than 8i pounds shall 
not be shipped from the islands, but shall 
be held there subject to such instructions 
as may be furnished you hereafter by the 
department. Skins weighing less than 
5 pounds shall not be shipped from the 
islands, unless, in your judgment, the 
number thereof is so small as to justify 
the belief that they have been taken only 
through unavoidable accident, mistake, 
or error in judgment. 

Sec 10. Seals for food.- — The number of 
seals to be killed by the natives for food 
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, 
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of 
St. Paul and 500 on the island of St. 
George, subject to the same limitations 
and restrictions as apply to the killing 
of seals by the company for the quota. 
Care should be taken that no branded 
seals be killed in the drives for food . 

[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.] 

Identical with instructions of 1906. 

[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908.] 

Identical with instructions of 1907. 

[Instructions issued Mar. 27, 1909.] 

Sec. 10. Seals for food.- — Identical with 
instructions for 1906, 1907, and 1908, ex- 
cept in addition is added "The maximum 
weight for food skins shall not exceed 7 
pounds." 

[Instructions issued May 9, 1910.] 

Sec. 11. Seals for food. — Driving for na- 
tives' food should not begin before Octo- 
ber 20, and care should be exercised at 
that date that the skins of seals killed be 
no "stagey" to a degree that would im- 
pair the commercial value of the skin. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



11 



the seals killed are limited to 6£ pounds, 
in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds 
branded during the summer, you under- 
stand the natives do kill down a little 
more closely than our regulations allow, 
for the reason that they need the meat, 
and since they have to exclude all these 
fine, fat seals over 6^ pounds they go for 
the little fellows a little more closely. 

The Chairman. How many seals were 
killed last year for food by the natives? 

Mr. Lembkey. The limit was 2,500. 
Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300 
were killed. 

Q. Were any females killed? — A. No, 
sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated, 
I carefully interrogated these two gentle- 
men who had charge of this killing, and 
they stated that to their knowledge no 
female was killed. 

Q. What class of males were killed by 
by the natives for food? — A. Under 6^ 
pounds 

(Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July 25, 1912, 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

Lembkey swears that he an- 
nually reserves from slaughter 
1,000 3 year old male seals, be 
fore any killing is done, for the 
season in June. 

Mr. Lembkey. Before any killing was 
done this summer, as has been the practice 
for some years past following the bureau's 
instructions, 1,000 of the choicest 3-year- 
olds appearing in the first drives of the 
season were reserved for future breeders 
and marked by shearing their beads, so as 
to render their subsequent recognition 
during the season an easy matter. These 
seals, thus marked, were immune from 
clubbing and were not killed. These 
3-year-old seals the following year became 
4-year-olds, the killing of which class in 
general is prohibited. Only after the 
1,000 3-year-olds, known as the breeding 
reserve, is secured and marked does the 
killing of seals for skins begin. The kill- 
ing is confined only to the 2 and 3-year- 
old immature males not required for pur- 
poses of reproduction. To obtain these. 
the breeding rookeries are not disturbed, 
but the bachelors hauling grounds on 
either island were driven every fifth or 
sixth day if seals were found thereon in 
sufficient numbers to justify driving. 
The killing season begins on July 1 and 
ends July 31, but one drive is always 
made subsequently on August 10 to fur- 
nish the natives with fresh meat during a 
portion of the so-called '"stagey" season 
(when the seals shed their hair), which 
begins August 10 and ends October 20. 



Drives for food should be made not oftener 
than the needs of the natives in that re- 
spect require. Drives for food on rookeries 
remote from the villages should not be 
made unless the carcasses actually are 
necessary for natives' food or for food for 
foxes, or for some other sound reason, 
and in any event, care should be taken 
to preserve for future use the carcasses of 
such seals as are not immediately dis- 
posed of. The number of seals to be 
killed for natives' food for the fiscal year 
beginning July 1, 1910, should not ex- 
ceed 1,700 on St. Paul and 500 on St. 
George. No female seal or seal having a 
skin weighing under 5 pounds or more 
than 7 pounds shall be killed during the 
so-called "food -killing season." Care 
shall be taken that no reserved or marked 
bachelors be killed in the drives for food 
or at any other time. 

[Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.] 

Identical with instructions of 1910. 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 483-486, April, 
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

But Clark reports that these 
reserved seals of June are all killed 
as food seals in October following 
or in the following spring. 

3. The reserve of bachelors. — Beginning 
with the season of 1904, there has been set 
aside each spring a special breeding re- 
serve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years 
of age. These animals have been marked 
by clipping the head with sheep shears, 
giving them a whitish mark readily dis- 
tinguishing them to the clubbers. They 
are carefully exempted on the killing 
field and released. 

This method of creating a breeding re- 
serve seems open to considerable criti- 
cism, and has apparently hecn only mod- 
erately successful. The mark put upon 
the animal is a temporary one. The fur 
is replaced during the fall and winter, and 
the following spring the marked seals can 
not be recognized. The animals being 2 
and 3 years of age are still billable the 
next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the 
second season. A new lot of 2,000 is 
clipped the next season, and these are 
carefully exempted, but, except in so far 
as animals of the previous season's mark- 
ing are reclipped, they have no protection 
the second season, and without doubt are 
killed. 

If such is not the case, it is difficult to 
understand what becomes of them. The 
annual reservation from 1904 to 1907, both 
seasons included, would aggregate 8,000 
animals. These animals would be of ages 
ranging from 8 to 5 years this season. The 



12 PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

and during which no killing is done. — only animals present in 1909 which could 
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 362, 363, Feb. 29, have resulted from this reservation were 
1912. House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and the 513 idle and half bulls. Even if we 
Labor.) assume that they have in the meantime 

replaced the entire stock of breeding bulls, 
this would account for only 1,900 of them, 
and the active bulls were for the most 
part of a distinctly older class. — (Report 
G. A. Clark to Secretary Nagel, Sept. 30, 
1909, p. 847, Appendix A, House Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.) 

Were these regulations continued ? No. As soon as Mr. Hitchcock 
was promoted to the Postmaster General's office in 1905 a person 
named E. W. Sims, "solicitor" of the department, was put in charge 
of the fur-seal business, and then this same Mr. Lembkey was pre- 
vailed upon to nullify the "Hitchcock rules," so that in 1906 the 
lessees secured every young male seal that hauled out, over, and 
under 1 year of age and upward. 

This close killing was continued on the islands up to the passage of 
the act of August 24, 1912, which stops it completely for five years. 

And this close killing since 1896, when first ordered, has been done 
in violation of the regulations forbidding it, up to date, and is re- 
sponsible for this wreck of the herd as we find it to-day. 

What is the loss which the public Treasury has suffered since 1896 
by reason of that violation of law and regulations then and since (i. e., 
reduced to a matter of dollars and cents) ? I answer as follows : 

I. This excessive close killing of the young males has so disturbed 
the balance of natural order and the system of the breeding rookeries 
that instead of having a herd of 1,000,000 seals on them to-day we 
have only 190,555. 

II. Had it not been for the work of the pelagic sealer since 1896 
to December 15, 1911, the harems on the islands to-day would be at 
the ratio of 250 to 500 cows (yes, even 1,000) to 1 bull, and that 
would have fairly destroyed the species by 1907-1909. 

III. Therefore this killing so close and in violation of the regula- 
tions since 1896 to date has cost us the loss of over 120,000 seals taken 
in flagrant, criminal trespass by the lessees and in violation of their 
contract ; but it has also cost us vastly more in the loss of the earning 
power of this herd, which should have been, and would have been, 
properly conserved had it not been for the greedy interference of 
these private interests when foreign governments were approached 
with negotiations for the elimination of pelagic sealing and all private 
interests in the killing of seals on land and in the sea. 

IV. The sum total of loss actually suffered by the public Treasury 
through this combination between the lessees and our own agents 
and officials may be summed up fairly as follows, to wit: 

To loss of 120,000 "yearlings," (or "eyeplaster " skins),_at $30 $3, 600, 000 

To loss of annual earnings of a fully restored herd (as it would have been 
had it not been for interference of lessees in 1890-91), of 4,700,000 seals 
from 1897 to 1913—16 years' output of 60,000 prime skins annually 48, 000, 000 

Total loss 51, 600, 000 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 13 

Or, in short, and to be nearly exact, we have lost $3,600,000 by 
criminal trespass of lessees since 1896, and fully $48,000,000 by 
improper interference of lessees and others with negotiations which, 
but for them, would have been successfully consummated in 1891-92, 
and the herd fully restored by 1897. 

The following illustration of loss suffered on the rookeries and the 
hauling grounds of St. Paul Island holds good for the smaller sister 
island of St. George: 

The acreage of the breeding rookeries on St. Paul Island in 1872- 
1874, when there were 1,500,000 breeding cows and 90,000 bulls 
thereon, was 144 acres. 

The acreage of the hauling grounds of St. Paul Island in 1872- 
1874, when at least 1,500,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old 
males were out on them intermittently during the season, was 
3,200 acres.* 

In 1890 this acreage of the breeding rookeries was reduced to 
one-third of 1874, or to 46 acres. 

In 1890 the hauling grounds of 1872-1874 were practically aban- 
doned, because there were less than 100,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 
6 year old males out on them. The entire area then visited by the 
holluschickie was not more than one-tenth of the breeding grounds 
in 1890, or 5 acres. 

In 1913 this acreage of the breeding seals had decreased from its 
form in 1890 at least five-sixths, or to 1\ acres. 

In 1913 the hauling grounds of 1890 were about half the same 
area as then, with less than 40,000 yearlings, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year 
old males, or to 3 acres. 

The object in view which has stimulated this destruction, as above 
shown, is in turn exposed to view, as follows: 

Statement of the net profits of the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska from 1870 to 1910, 
inclusive. From, items gathered during the seasons of 1872-73, 1874, 1876, 1890, to 
date. July 29, 1910, by Henry W. Elliott. 

PROFITS OF FIRST LESSEES, ALASKA COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 

(First lease.) 

1870-1890 (20 years): Total catch, 1,856,224 seals; of these when 
taken during the seasons of 1870-1878, 1884, and 1885, inclusive, 
the catches aggregated 969,374 seals; the average price per skin 
realized in London for theni was nearly $11.20 per skin, or $10, 746, 989. 80 

The balance when taken during tl e seasons of 1879-1883 and 1886- 
1889, tl e catches aggregated 886,850 seals; tl e average price realized 
in London for them was nearly $18.50 per skin, or 16, 407, 225. 00 

Showing a gross sum total of 27, 153, 514. 80 

From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $4.52^ as incurred 
by tie lessees for tax, rental, and other charges incidental, must 
be subtracted, or the sum of 8, 399, 603. 60 

Declaring a net profit of 18, 753, 911. 20 

PROFITS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FROM THIS WORK OF THE LESSEES, AS 

ABOVE STATED. 

Gross revenue derived from said catch of 1,856,224 seals, each skin 
paying a tax of $3.17 (tax, rental, and bonus) $5,894,230.08 

Less cost of supervision, patrol, and protection of the seal herds from 
1889-1890, 21 years, inclusive, was an average of $30,000, or in round 
numbers a sum total of 630, 000. 00 

Declaring a net profit to the Government of 5, 264, 230. 08 



14 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

PROFITS OF THE NORTH AMERIACN COMMERCIAL CO., OF SAN FRANCISCO. 

(Second lease.) 

1890-1910 (20 years): Total catch, 343,365 seals. With the exception of the sea- 
sons of 1894-1898, inclusive, the average price has been $28 per skin; the highest 
average was in 1890, when it went to $36.50 (due to all "prime skins"), and the low- 
est was in 1897, when it fell to $15.50; the last sale, 1909, was $30 and made up of 
"small pup" or "eyeplaster" skins chiefly. 

This record of the second lease declares that its aggregated catch of 

• 343,365 skins sold in London for $9, 614, 222. 00 

From this gross sum total the cost of each skin at $13.45 for tax, rental, 
and other incidental charges must be subtracted, or the sum of 4, 637, 646. 00 



Declaring a net profit of 4, 976, 574. 00 

Profit of the United States Government from this work of the lessees 
as stated above, derived from said catch of 343,365 seals, each skin 
paying a tax, rental, and bonus of $10.22 3, 509, 190. 30 

Less cost of patrol, supervision, and protection of this seal herd from 
1889 to May 1, 1910, 20 years, at an average cost from start to finish of 
$250,000 annually 5, 000, 000. 00 

Declaring a net loss of 1, 491, 809. 70 

This in brief is the loss fairly and conservatively stated, which the 
Public Treasury has suffered by the mismanagement of our fur- seal 
herd of Alaska since 1890-91 to date: 

I have this to say anent that remarkable combination which has 
been made in Washington, on the seal islands, and elsewhere to loot 
and ruin this fine public property. 

Whenever facts were courteously given to Secretary Nagel and his 
associates, these men either denounced the action as an "imperti- 
nence" and "meddlesome" or ignored them. 

Of course this is the natural result of a partnership between the 
Government and private business interests. Such a partnership is a 
close corporation, into which no one else has a right to intrude. 

To oppose the wishes of this combination, to question the facts 
upon which it relies, to suggest that any others, or the people have 
any rights that ought to be considered, even to seek for information 
outside this circle of the interests involved by the lease, all this was 
very "tiresome" and "impertinent." 

The men on the inside, Liebes, Mills, Jordan, Elkins, Clark, Lemb- 
key, Bowers, et al., had made up their minds that certain things must 
be true, and all they wanted was that "evidence" which "proved" 
their theory; they furnished the "evidence." 

They did not want the truth as it actually exists, but the "truth" 
only in so far as it conformed to their preconceived ideas of what it 
should be. 

With the foregoing statements carefully made, I now desire to 
submit the several items of fact which bear directly on the effect of 
killing yearling seals as has been done by the lessees and our own 
agents and others, upon the life of the fur-seal herd, and this show- 
ing I arrange as 



EXHIBIT I. 

In Exhibit III, following, are the itemized lists of more than 120,000 
yearling seals which have been taken by the lessees since 1896, on 
the Pribilof Islands, in criminal trespass. 

The sole object of prohibiting the killing of yearlings by law and 
regulations was and is to prevent the killing of female seals, since 
the sex of seals can not be told apart when as yearlings they haul 
out upon the islands. The yearling female is precisely of the same 
size, shape, and outward appearance and behavior, frcm every point 
of view, as is the male yearling. Unless she is caught and ex- 
amined by <nir hand her sex can not be told truly by us or by any 
human being — only guessed wildly. 

Therefore, as it is utterly impracticable to capture, examine, and 
separate the male and female yearlings on the hauling grounds or 
killing grounds, the killing of them as a class has been prohibited 
and wisely ordered, since this class is easily recognized on the slaugh- 
tering held. 

In spite of this prohibition, when the numbers of 2 and 3 year 
old male seals as secured ran down year after year to zero, the lessees 
in order to get the full number allowed them of 2 and 3 year old seals, 
entered into a combination with the agents of the Government 
and slaughtered the yearlings by the tens of thousands; but falsi- 
fied that work to the Government, declaring that no seals had been 
taken under 2 years of age since 1896. The details of this malfea- 
sance and fraud on the part of the Government agents and the lessees 
are fully given in Exhibit III (pcsted). 

In order that an adequate idea may be f< rmed of what the loss 
to the herd is when female yearlings are killed (and half of the 120,000 
yearlings taken since 1896 were females), the following table of 
increase which 4,500 slaughtered yearling cows in 1896 would have 
brought to the herd is given, to wit: 

Table showing the natural increase of 4,500 yearling eoivs from 1896 to 1909 if they had 
been suffered to live undisturbed on the Pribilofrookeri.es. 



Year. 


Breeding 
cows. 


Pups. 


Yearling 
cows. 


Yearling 
males. 


Two- 
year-old 
males. 


Three- 
year-old 
males. 


Four- 
year-old 
males. 


Remarks. 


1896. . . . 






4,500 












1897. . . . 


4,415 

4,327 

4,241 

5,238 

6,106 

6,997 

8,143 

9,477 

11,073 

12,846 

14, 912 

17,324 

20, 225 














1898. . . . 


4,327 

4,241 

4,157 

5,136 

5,984 

6,859 

7,981 

9,369 

10,851 

12,590 

14,614 

16, 978 














1899.... 


1,031 
1,001 
1,010 
1,250 
1,450 
1,700 
1,990 
2,342 
2,700 
3,000 
3,600 


1,031 
1,001 
1,010 
1,250 
1,450 
1,700 
1,990 
2,342 
2,700 
3,000 
3,600 










1900.... 


1,000 
1,000 
1,000 
1,350 
1,650 
1,800 
2,250 
2,600 
2,850 
2,940 








1901 .... 


990 
1,000 

980 
1,294 
1,500 
1,760 
2,200 
2,600 
2,750 






1902.... 
1903.... 
1904.... 
1905. . . . 
1906.... 
1907.... 
1908.... 
1909.... 


840 
850 
800 
1,000 
1,200 
1,500 
2,000 
2,250 


The 5-year and 6-year 
old bulls are not car- 
ried in this table, 
which is to express 
the loss in value of 
commercial skins; all 
male skins over 4 
years have no real 
commercial value. 



15 



16 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

The above exhibit declares that by 1909, or in 12 years' time from 
their initial or first impregnation, July, 1897, these 4,500 yearling 
cows of July, 1896, would have increased five fold — to 20,225 breeding 
adult females and to 16,978 pups born July, 1909, to 3,600 yearling 
cows of 1909 to 3,600 yearling bulls of 1909, to 2,940 2 year old bulls 
of 1909, to 2,750 3-year-old bulls of 1909, and to 2,250 4-year-old bulls 
of 1909, being the increase of 4,500 yearling cows to 52,343 seals in 
12 years— from 1897 to 1909. 

When Lembkey and the lessees killed yearlings, they knew that 
they were females after they had killed them and that they could 
not tell the sex until after they had killed them. In his report, 1904, 
page 55, Appendix A, Lembkey says: "One yearling was killed by 
me during the summer to determine the weight of that class of skins. 
The entire animal — a female * * * ." Again in his report 
he tells us that the yearling females are in the drives with the yearling 
males, and that he killed one to ascertain its weight and sex (p. 77, 
Appendix A), to wit: "On July 1, there were three yearling seals in 
the drives at North East Point. One of them, a typical specimen, 
was knocked down at my direction to ascertain the weight of the 
skin. It was found to be a female * * * ." 

Dr. Jordan also knew that the yearlings hauled out males and 
females together, and that they could not be told apart as to sex by 
outward survey unless caught and handled. He is officially recorded 
as follows in that connection: 

St. Pauls Island, 

Saturday, August 1, 1896. 

Dr. Jordan, assisted by the natives * * * drove up part of one and two year old 
seals from the Reef Rookery : they were examined with a view to determining whether 
or not yearling seals were to be found among these young bachelors. It is now con- 
ceded that yearling females do not haul out on the rookeries but among the hollus- 
chickie." (Official Journal Government Agent, St. Pauls Island, Alaska, p. 465.) 

These 128,000 yearlings which were taken by "criminal trespass" 
between 1890-1909 were so taken in violation of law and regulations 
and by collusion with certain public agents, who had guilty knowledge 
of this work. 

One-half of this number of yearlings by the natural law of their 
birth were female seals, which were to become nubile mother seals 
one year later, and which as such would each live from 10 to 12 years, 
bearing annually one pup during that period of their lives. 

Therefore this killing by criminal trespass and in guilty knowledge 
of these 60,000 yearling cows has cost th.3 Government the full value 
of that annual increment to the seal herd which those cow seals would 
have made since 1896, plus that increase in turn which their offspring 
would have made, and so on in turn annually up to the season of 1912. 

Upon a basis of calculating that particular loss from this single 
killing of those 4,500 yearling cows in 1896, for example, thus suffered 
by the Public Treasury, we find that this loss from a systematic killing 
of yearlings which was begun by the lessees, in violation of the Car- 
lisle rules of May 14, 1896, in June-July, 1896 (and continued by them 
up to the end of their lease in 1909), to be fairly stated as follows: 

We start with 4,500 yearling cows which were killed in 1896; in 
1897, if not so killed, they would have returned less 2 per cent of that 
number from natural death rate, or as 4,415 two-year-old cows ; they go 
directly to the breeding grounds and are there impregnated for the 
first time as "nubiles." 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 17 

In 1898 they return again as 3-year-old cows, or " primipares," 
less 2 per cent of their number from natural death rate, or 4,327 new 
cows, and each one bears one pup. They are again served and leave. 

In 1809 they return again, less 2 per cent from natural death rate, 
or as 4,241 "multiparas," and bear their pups — 4,241 of them. In 
the meantime th.3 4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned to the haul- 
ing grounds as "yearlings,," less 50 per cent of their number, or 2,163 
of them. 

In 1900 these cows return again, less 2 per cent natural death rate 
or 4,157 of them, and bear 4,157 pups; their number is now increased 
by the "nubiles," or their own daughters, which come out with them 
as 2-year-old cows from the yearlings of 1899, or 1,000 "nubiles," 
making 5,238 cows as breeders this year. 

In 1901 these cows return exactly as in 1900, bear their pups, and 
are again increased in numbers by the "nubiles," or "yearlings," of 
1900, making 6,106 cows as breeders this year; in the meantime the 
4,327 pups born in 1898 have returned, less 50 per cent of their num- 
ber in 1899, as 2,163 "yearlings," and in 1900 these "yearlings" have 
returned, less 2 per cent of then* number from natural death rate, as 
2-year-olds; one-half of them being females are "nubiles" (1,030 of 
them) , and have gone upon the breeding grounds, never to be on the 
hauling grounds again, with the young males. 

The foregoing table, showing the annual increase of those 4,500 
yearling cows if not disturbed by man on the islands and in the sea, 
declares the fact that from 1896 to 1909 that that single killing of 
4,500 yearling cows in 1896, in violation of the Carlisle rules, actually 
caused the loss of 20,225 adult female seals and 20,000 2-year-old 
male seals from the herd's total life. 

Upon this basis of fact, in calculating the actual loss to the Public 
Treasury from the effect of taking 60,000 yearling cows from the 
Pribilof Island seal herd between 1890-1909, in criminal trespass by 
the lessees, it appears that — 

I. That that killing of 60,000 yearling cows has had the full effect 
of taking 200,000 choice 2-year-old male seals from the Pribilof herd 
between 1890-1909, and it has also destroyed 200,225 adult breeding 
cow seals, or, summed up — 

II. A property loss of 400,000 seals; the value of their skins is not 
less than $20,000,000, to say nothing about the loss of the annual 
earning capacity. Then Elliott having charged the killing of these 
young yearling seals, males and females alike, Lembkey declared that 
it could not be so, since all the killing was done under his direction by 
the natives, who never made any mistake about the age of seals when 
they were killing them. Lembkey testified, January 25, 1907, to the 
Ways and Means Committee (MS. Notes, Hearing on Fur Seals, p. 58) : 

Mr. Lembkey. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the clubbers on the islands are 
expert in their business and they can determine the weight of a skin on a live seal to 
within a fraction of a pound. 

Mr. Grosvenor. That's all I wanted to know. 

Mr. Lembkey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance. 

The seal island natives, in a sworn statement made to the agents 
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of 
Commerce, on St. Pauls Island, July 24, 1913, declared that they not 
only knew seals by ages, but that when they killed them they knew 

21588—13 2 



18 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

it then, and that in 1896 they first began to kill yearling seals for the 
lessees under the orders of the lessees and the Government agents. 
(See Exhibit D, Report Special Agents, House Committee on Ex- 
penditures in the Department of Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.) 

The following proof is submitted that the pups are born equal in 
number as to sex, and that brings them as "yearlings" onto the 
islands males and females alike entirely as to numbers, outward 
shape, coats, size, and weights, as seen when driven and killed: 

Committee on Expenditures in the 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Friday, June 2, 1911. 

The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Mr. Chairman, how do we know that yearlings are females and 
males equal in sex? How do we know, when we kill yearlings, that we are apt to kill 
as many females as males without examining them? How do we prove it? I prove 
it in this way first, and it has been affirmed even by this "advisory board." I said 
in 1881, in my official monograph, that from my calculations, in round numbers, a 
million pups are born every year on these islands. 

Mr. McGuire. When was this? 

Mr. Elliott. In 1874 that I prepared it, but it was published officially in 1881. 
They have been carefully elaborated by the Government. That a million pups are 
born every year on these islands, and of this million one-half are males. How did I 
know that? In November, 1872, I stood over a killing of these pups, which were then 
A\ to 5 months old, which was allowed by the Treasury Department for "native's 
food " [and that has been allowed for some time by the Russians], and just before these 
pups were departing for the winter, and the solitude of winter was to come over the 
islands, there being no birds, or fish, or anything, the natives wanted some choice 
food to hang up, some meat, and as the pups are the sweetest and most toothsome 
seal meat, they naturally desired pup meat. So they killed in the autumn, under my 
eyes, several squads, altogether some 10,000 pups; but I tallied 9,000 pups between 
November 15 and November 25, 1872, at St. Pauls village, of which 4,800 were males. 
The "advisory board," represented by Mr. F. A. Lucas, in 1897, addressed me a note 
saying: 

"Dear Mr. Elliott: Can you give me the exact number of pups you counted for 
sex and the proportion of males and females? Looking over my own notes makes 
me wish to quote you exactly. 

"F. A. Lucas." 

I sent Mm this memorandum : 

[Memorandum for Lucas.] 

"Nine thousand pups driven November 15-25, 1872, 1,670 tallied by myself, 855 
of which were males; the rest tallied by Church; average weight 39 pounds; some 
as high as 50 pounds and some as low as 28 pounds." 

Then I received another note from Mr. Lucas, as follows: 

"Dear Mr. Elliott: Your figures on pups came in finely and make it certain that 
there is a small preponderance of males; our figures were, males, 388; females, 362 — 
a total of 750, not far from yours. 

"F. A. Lucas." 

That was a pretty close tally; you see I was right, and that I knew what I was about. 

1 also penned this memorandum, which was made on that pup-weighing day: 

"St. Paul Island, Bering Sea, 

"November 20, 1872. 

"A pup, average weight of 4,800 fur-seal pups, as tallied November 20, 1872, deter- 
mined on the killing grounds, average gross weight 39 pounds, thus: Clean skin, 

2 pounds 11 ounces; all the blubber, 14 pounds; tendons, flesh, and flippers, 14 
pounds and 5 ounces; bones and intestines, 7 pounds and 8 ounces — a total of 38 
pounds and 8 ounces — " 

Or a weight of practically 39 pounds for a pup that was 4h to 5 months old. (Hear- 
ing No, 1, pp. 25, 26.) 



EXHIBIT II. AN EXHIBIT OF THE FACTS WHICH SHOW US 
THE SOLE FIRST CAUSE OF THAT COMMERCIAL RUIN OF 
OUR FUR-SEAL HERD WHICH WE NOW OBSERVE ON THE 
PRIBILOF ISLANDS. 

If it were not for these records elaborately and systematically made 
on those desolate hauling grounds, which I published in 1874 and 1890, 
it would be fairly impossible to get an adequate idea of what an im- 
mense herd of fur seals was in existence at the time and when we took 
possession of Alaska in 1867. 

Then, when that idea is grasped, and it is made clear that ever since 
1857, up to the hour of 1867 when the herd became ours, this wild 
life had remained at about a steady annual number of 4,700,000 seals 
of all classes, we ask, What have we done to reduce it, so by this year 
of 1913, all that we find surviving of it are only 190,555 seals of all 
classes ? 

Why did we lose this herd, when the Russians easily kept it from 
1857 to 1867 in that fine form and number? 

The answer is made easy in the light of the following facts : 

I. It is a fact of indisputable record, that the Russians never killed 
or disturbed the female seals on the rookeries of St. Paul and St. 
George Island, from start to finish of their possession of them. 

II. It is a fact of indisputable record, that from 1786-87 up to 1800 
the Russians annually took from 120,000 to 60,000 young male, and 
yearling seals from these hauling grounds; and during all that time 
never took any seals at sea, nor were these seals taken at sea by any 
other people save the few annually secured by the northwest coast 
Indians. 

III. It is a fact of indisputable record that the Russians, beginning 
in 1800 with an annual catch of 40,000 young male seals and year- 
lings, by 1817 had the greatest difficulty in getting that number then; 
and notes of protest against the killing on the islands were sent to 
Sitka by the caretaker, Kazean Shaishnikov, of St. Pauls Island, 
urging the governor of the R. A. Co. to rest the seals from killing for 
a term of years. No pelagic sealing was known to the Russians 
during this period of any kind. 

IV. It is a fact of indisputable record that while the protest of 
Shaishnikov was noticed favorably by the governor, yet the direc- 
tors of the R. A. Co. at St. Petersburg did not consent; that they 
renewed their orders to kill and sent one of their number, Gen. Yah- 
novsky, out from St. Petersburg in 1818 to the seal islands, charged 
with the business of examining into the cause of this loss of surplus 
male life on the islands. 

V. It is a fact of indisputable record that Yahnovsky in 1820, 
after spending the entire season of 1819 on the Pribilof hauling 
grounds and rookeries, made a confidential, detailed report which 
declared that this immense decline in the life of the fur-seal herd was 
due entirely to the annual killing of all of the young male seals and 

19 



20 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

yearlings which the drivers of the company could secure; he urged a 
complete cessation of it for a term of years. 

VI. It is a fact of indisputable record that this request of Gen. 
Yahnovsky was ignored by the directors, and the orders to get all of 
the young male seals and yearlings were annually renewed; and 

VII. It is a fact of indisputable record that at the end of the season 
of 1834 instead of getting 20,000 holluschickie they secured with the 
"utmost exertion" only 12,000 "small" (yearling) seals; and that 
with the end of this season's work the herd was so reduced that the 
directors were obliged to order a 10 years' rest to all commercial kill- 
ing on the islands, which went into effect in the summer of 1834, and 
was faithfully enforced; so that by 1844 commercial killing was re- 
sumed of a relatively small number, beginning with 10,000 to 13,000, 
increasing gradually annually up to 1857, when this herd yielded 
that year 62,000 "choice young male" seals, and the herd itself had 
regained its natural and normal maximum number, viz, from 4,500,000 
to 5,000,000 seals of all classes. 

VIII. It is a fact that during all this period of decline and restora- 
tion of the Russian herd from 1800 to 1857 there was nothing known 
of or hinted at which is now so well known as "pelagic sealing." 

IX. It is a fact that when we took possession of the herd we 
leased them to a corporation, with a permit to take annually 100,000 
young male seals, or 40,000 more every year than had been the 
average number taken by the Russian management since 1857. 

X. It is a fact of indisputable record that by 1883 our lessees had 
great difficulty in getting their quota this year of 100,000 "prime" 
3 and 4 year old skins ; that they began to scour the hauling grounds 
for them and increased the rigor of that search and driving annually 
thereafter. 

XI. It is a fact of indisputable record that up to this time of first 
difficulty since 1870 of getting annually 100,000 fine young male seals 
no pelagic sealing of the slightest consequence was in operation. 
Only six or seven small vessels, busy for a few weeks in the year off the 
Straits of Fuca and west coast of Vancouver Island, had appeared in 
the sea up to the opening of the season of 1886. 

1. Therefore in the light, as above clearly and fairly thrown by 
these records of past experience, we now know that the Pribilof herd 
was reduced to the very same commercial ruin by 1834 which we now 
find our herd reduced to in 1913. 

2. And that this ruin of 1834, and again in 1913, was caused by the 
very same close killing annually of all the young male seals and year- 
lings that could be secured by the greedy Russian contractors and by 
our lessees. 

3. And that the Russians to save and restore the herd were com- 
pelled to stop this excessive and improper killing in 1834 and suspend 
any commercial killing on the islands for 10 years thereafter, or up to 
1844-1846. 

4. And that the experiment of annually taking 100,000 choice, 
young male seals since 1870 up to 1890 by our lessees, as against the 
habit of taking 60,000 annually by the Russian lessees, was a bad 
one; and that this number of 100,000 "surplus male seals" was an 
excessive and destructive killing, which has led to a complete elimi- 
nation of the breeding male life of the herd, as we see it to day, and 
which policy if continued will surely exterminate the species itself. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 21 

I now reach in due order a very serious question which involves the 
intelligence and the honor of Dr. David Starr Jordan, who, as the 
chairman of the commission of 1896-7, visited the seal islands and 
reported to the United States Government upon the condition of 
this life. 

In this report Dr. Jordan has deliberately falsified the authentic 
Russian records, which - declared to him as they declare to us the 
fact that female seals were never killed by the Russian authorities 
on the seal islands of Alaska — never from start to finish of their 
regime. 

DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN RECORD IN RE 
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS. 

Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian killing 
of seals from the time the old Russian-American Co. took charge 
of the Pribilof herd in 1800, up to the day we received it from them 
in 1867, never permitted the killing of female seals. He, with that 
full knowledge in his possession, after holding it for nearly two years, 
has the following untruthful statement to finally report under date 
of February 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of this work of killing 
seals by the Russian management of the herd, to wit: 

On page 25, Fur Seal Investigations, Part 1, 1898, under head of 
"The company's management," he says: 

At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian -American Co. put a 
stop to the ruthless slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction 

* * *. They still continued to kill males and females alike. The injury to the 
herd naturally continued * * *. 

That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial 
of the only authority which he has used and knows, is hard to 
believe, when on page 222 following, of this same report above cited, 
part 3, appears the following translation of Bishop Veniaminov's 
account of this killing, which was originally published hi St. Peters- 
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit: 

The taking of fur seals commences in the latter days of September * * *. The 
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. e., 2 years and older) having been removed, the 
others are divided into small squads, and are carefully driven to the place where 
they are to be killed, sometimes more than 10 versts distance * * *. When 
brought to the killing grounds, they are rested for an hour or more, according to 
circumstances, and then killed with a club * * *. Of those 1 year old, the males 
are separated from the females, and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the 
beach. 

Here is the explicit clear-cut statement made by Veniaminor, who, 
writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Paul Island, denies Dr. 
Jordan's assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals 
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd. 

And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted was made 
by Leonhard Stejneger, one of Dr. Jordan's own associates on the seal 
islands in 1896-97. 

There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises. 
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is positively stated 
by the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the 
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan's final 
report, and correctly translated, as above cited. 



22 FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should 
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has 
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page 
25 Jordan's own statement is : 

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the imperial Government, after an inspection of the 
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and 
leaving only the adults as breeders. He writes: "If any of the young breeders are 
not killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring." 

Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor- 
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this 
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in 
his mouth. Witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky: 

In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky in giving an account 
of his inspection of the operations on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, observes 
that every year the young bachelor seals are killed and that only the cows, seekatchie, 
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species. It follows that only the old seals 
are left, while if any of the bachelors are left alive in the autumn they are sure to be 
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes 
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix 
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration: Letter No. 6; p. 58, Mar. 15, 1821.) 

Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the 
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a " scientist " 
like Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr. Jordan attempt to deceive 
his Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the 
herd between 1800-1837 % Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily 
brought up to confound him ? 

He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified this 
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and ruin of that 
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official 
report to our Government dated February 24, 1898, and published 
by the Secretary of the Treasury in January, 1898, under title of 
"Fur Seal Investigations," parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898. 

Why does Dr. Jordan substitute the word "breeders" for Yanov- 
sky's word " bachelors " in his quotation from that Russian agent? 
Because a "breeder" must be either a male or a female seal and 
"breeders" must be both male and female seals — the very idea that 
Yanovsky clearly denies — the idea of killing female seals. He 
denies it clearly by saying that the "young bachelors" are killed, 
and they only. 

This substitution of "breeders" for "bachelors" by Jordan is a 
guilty attempt to conceal the truth as told by Yanovsky, and plainly 
told by that Russian. 

At this point, and with special regard to the killing of yearling seals, 
Dr. Jordan, in 1909, when the charges were being put up to him that 
those young seals were being taken in violation of law and to the 
injury of the herd, made no denial himself, but urged Secretary Nagel 
to send his own associate and assistant, George A. Clark, up to islands 
to investigate and report upon the charges, etc. (See Appendix A, 
pp. 815, 816; June 24, 1911, House Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

In this connection I now ask the committee to observe the following 
record of that report and its result, to wit: 

On April 26, 1909, Henry W. Elliott addressed a detailed letter of 
specific charges to Secretary Charles Nagel, declaring that the agents 
of the Government, in collusion with the lessees, were killing yearling 
seals in open, flagrant violation of the law and regulations. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



23 



Mr. Nagel made no answer to Mr. Elliott, but on May 7, 1909, he 
selected and appointed George A. Clark as an agent of the department 
to proceed to and investigate these charges on the seal islands of 
Alaska (said Clark being urged for this work by Dr. Jordan). 

On September 30, 1909, Clark filed an elaborate report and con- 
firmed Elliott's charges in re killing yearlings without any qualifica- 
tion, thus; and I contrast it with that of his associate, Lembkey, up 
there in 1909, who denies the same, to wit: 



lembkey, under oath, declares that 

he does not kill yearling seals 

and never has. 

Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, House of 
Representatives, 
Washinaton. D. C Thursday, 

February 29, 1912. 
The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

Testimony of Walter I. Lembkey, agent 
Alaska Seal Fisheries, Bureau of Fish- 
eries, Department of Commerce and 
Labor. 

, Mr. Lembkey. Our killing is confined 
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively. 
The seals which they desire to kill are 
dispatched at once by means of a blow on 
the top of the head with a heavy club, and 
the seal struck is rendered unconscious 
immediately, if not killed outright. 

Briefly, Mr. Elliott has accused those 
charged with the management of the seal 
fisheries with malfeasance in office in 
that — ■ 

1. They have allowed the killing of 
thousands of yearling seals. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. What do you rail a 
yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that 
is 12 months old and no more? 

Mr. Lembkey. A yearling seal, in the 
island nomenclature, is a seal which has 
returned to the islands from its first 
migration. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. It may be more 
than 12 months old then? 

Mr. Lembkey. It may be more, it may 
be a trifle less. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. How much more 
than 12 months could it be? 

Mr. Lembkey. It could not be but a 
little more, because all these seals are 
born during a period of three weeks, gen- 
erally speaking, from the 25th of June to 
the 15th of July. Now, they return to 
the islands in a mass about the 25th of 
July. 

Mr. Madden. If they were killed it 
would be a violation of law. 



but clark, special investigator of 
secretary nagel, reports the kill- 
ing of yearlings by lembkey and 

lessees! 

The yearlings of both sexes for the sea- 
son must number about 12,000 each. 

This question of the proportion of the 
sexes surviving to killable and breeding 
age is a fundamental one. It could bg 
settled in a very few seasons by such regu- 
lation of killing for the quota as would 
limit it to animals of 3 years of age and 
over, leaving the 2-year-olds untouched. 
The quota would then fall where it be- 
longs, on the 3-year-olds, and give a close 
approximation of the survivals among the 
young males, which in turn could be ap- 
plied to the young females. This was the 
method used in 1896-97, when a minimum 
of 6 pounds in weight of skins prevailed. 
During the present season and for some 
seasons past a minimum of 5 pounds has 
been in force, the skins taken ranging in 
weight all the way from 4 to \A\ pounds, 
bringing all classes of animals from year- 
lings to 4-year-olds into the quota. 

The result of this manner of killing is 
that we have no clear idea from the quota 
of the number of younger animals belong- 
ing to the herd. From the irregularity of 
the movements of the yearlings of both 
sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can 
not be counted or otherwise accurately 
estimated on the rookeries. (Report of 
George A . Clark to Secretary Charles Nagel, 
Sept, 30. 1909 (suppressed Nov. 17, 1909). 
See pp. 850-851, Appendix A, June 24, 
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. & L.) 



24 FUR-SEAL HEED OE ALASKA. 

Mr. Lembkey. It would; if the regu- 
lations permitted it, however, it would be 
in accordance with existing law. 

It should be remembered also that the 
law does not prohibit the killing of any- 
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, 
although regulations of the department 
do prohibit the killing of anything less 
than 2 years old, or those seals which have 
returned to the islands from their second 
migration. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 360, 371, 
.372, Feb. 29-Mar. 1, 1912.) 

We now come to the point in Secretary Nagel's agent's report 
where Mr. Nagel is specifically and clearly told that the lessees are 
taking yearling seals — are taking everything that comes into the 
drives — taking these little seals just as Elliott has charged they were 
taken on April 26, 1909, and taking them in open, flagrant violation 
of the law and regulations. The following description of that illegal 
and injurious slaughter is given to Mr. Nagel, September 30, 1909, 
and Mr. Secretary Nagel shut his eyes to it, and presumed to deny it 
to the Senate and House committees, February 4 and May 31, 1911, 
to wit: 

July 23. — Attended the killing at Northeast Point and looked over the rookeries 
again after the drive. There are 5 harems to-day on the west side of Sea Lion Neck 
where only 3 were found on the 14th. 

******* 

The killing at the point this morning yielded 475 skins. The total number of 
animals driven was 712. Of these, 136 were shaved heads; 48 were rejected because 
too big, 53 because too little. Out of the 712 animals, therefore, only 53, or 7J per 
cent, are available for next year's quota. 

With this may be compared a killing made at Northeast Point in 1897. The total 
number killed was 1,322. The full drive numbered 3,869. There were no shaved 
heads. Of the 2,547 exempted from killing, 500 were too large, 2,047 too small. The 
2,047 small seals, or 55 per cent of the whole drive, were left for the quota of 1898. 
Contrast with this the 7\ per cent left for the quota of 1910. 

A killing was made at Halfway Point as usual on the return trip . It yielded 32 skins . 
Fifteen animals — young bulls — too large for killing and 9 shaved heads were exempted, 
but no small seals whatever. As the end of the killing season approaches it is plain 
that no seal is really too small to be killed. Skins of less than 5 pounds weight are 
taken and also skins of 8 and 9 pounds . These latter are plainly animals which escaped 
the killing of last year because their heads were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem 
clear how they did escape. 

July 24. — A killing was made this morning from Reef and Lukanin. Tolstoi has 
ceased to yield any bachelors. The killing yielded 685 skins; 135 shaved heads 
were turned back. The total number of animals driven was 941. Of the remaining 
exemptions, 81 were too big for killing, 40 too little. In short, only slightly over 
4 per cent of the animals driven were left for the quota of 1910. The actual percent- 
age killed was 72. If we add the number of killable size marked for breeding reserve, 
135, the percentage of killable seals in this drive rises to 87 per cent. In a drive made 
from these same rookeries on this date in 1897 the percentage of killable seals was 23. 
(Report of Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909; Appendix A, pp. 887-888; House Com- 
mittee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911.) 

Then again, this same agent of Secretary Nagel, and expert, as 
above cited, George A. Clark (also Dr. Jordan's assistant), says in a 
letter to W. T. Hornaday, dated August 26, 1911, that the lessees 
killed yearlings in 1909, and "defends" the act. He sends a copy 
to the Hon. J. H. Rothermel, and asks that it be " brought to the 
attention of your committee," under date of August 28, 1911. In 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 25 

it occur the following statements in re killing yearling seals (1909), 
to wit : 

Aside from this I approved rather than objected to the close killing * * * in 
1909. It was a wise business policy in that season and in the seasons immediately 
preceding and following to take every possible male on which the North American 
Commercial Co. would pay the tax of $10, and it must not be forgotten that the lessees 
paid this tax on every animal taken by them whether yearling or 3-year-old. 

I criticized the close killing of the season of 1909 on two specific grounds. First, 
that it is economically wasteful to kill at 2 or 1 year old an animal which at 3 will 
produce a larger and a better skin. Second, that the lapping of the quota over the 3- 
year-olds tended to obscure an important scientific fact in the life of the herd which 
ought to be solved, and which I had hoped to throw some light upon. I objected to 
the killing of the younger seals upon these grounds only, and recommended that 
the killing be confined to the age of 3 years. 

This shows that the killing of yearlings which Secretary Nagel 
denies in his letter to Senator Wesley L. Jones, February 23, 1911, was 
well known to and stated to Nagel by his own special investigator, 
George A. Clark, who was sent by him in 1909 to report upon this 
killing, and who did so report under date of September 30, 1909; 
his report appears to have been suppressed by Bowers (with Nagel's 
consent), and as stated on pages 82-84, Report of Elliott and Gal- 
lagher, agents House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce (Aug. 31, 1913). 

IN PROOF OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND KILLING BY THE LESSEES HAS 
BEEN INJURIOUS AND WITHOUT PROPER RESTRAINT, THE FOLLOW- 
ING RECORD IS MADE, TO WIT (BY SECRETARY NAGEL'S OWN SPECIAL 
AGENT, SEPT. 30, 1909) : 

In 1896, Dr. Jordan and his assistant, George A. Clark, made an 
elaborate denial of the charge that excessive killing or too close 
killing of the young male seals had injured and if continued would 
exterminate the herd. (Pp. 33-36, Report, 1896: Treasury Doc, 
1913.) In this argument they united in saying: 

In all these regards (i. e., as to killing seals) the interests of the lessees of the islands 
must be identical with those of the herd itself and therefore with those of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States. 

George A. Clark, sent up in 1909 by Secretary Charles Nagel, and 
at Dr. Jordan's urgent request, to make an investigation into the 
condition of the herd, after the effect of 13 years' killing by the 
lessees as licensed in 1896, by Dr. Jordan, has this to say, as against 
the above, anent the interests of the lessees. (Report, 1909: Ap- 
pendix A, p. 854.) 

The history of the killing field since 1900 strongly suggests the wisdom of reserving 
to the Government in the future more complete control of work of taking the 
quota. The interests of the lessees and those of the herd are by no means identical, 
and the latter are paramount. 

It is on the killing field, however, that the great need of a guiding and controlling 
hand is shown. In 1896-97 the Government agents ordered the drives. This season 
they have been entirely in the hands of the lessees. The young males set aside for 
breeding purposes having been marked, the lessees have been free to take what they 
could get, and this resulted in their taking practically all of the bachelors appearing 
on the hauling grounds. 

******* 

A diminished breeding reserve has therefore been possible. But we must consider 
a reversed condition of things, if pelagic sealing is to be done away with. The herd 
will then begin to grow. It will require a constantly increasing reserve of breeding 



26 FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

males, which must be saved from the killing fields. A leasing company will be just 
as eager to get all possible skins and will press the product of the hauling grounds, 
rising all too slowly, to its limit unless restrained. 

* * * With a fixed legal quota, and a limited time in which to secure it from a 
failing herd, there naturally results close, severe driving. In the eagerness to see that 
no possible bachelor escapes, the edges of the rookies are encroached upon and cows 
included in the drives. Fifty of them appeared in drives toward the close of this 
season. A drive that can not be made without including cows should be omitted. 
A drive which appears on the killing field with 15 to 20 cows in it should be released 
rather than incur the danger of clubbing any such cow by mistake. There should be 
some one in charge of the herd with power and discretion to do this. With a limited 
killing season, however, this would be unfair to the lessees. There should also be 
power and discretion to waive the limit and extend the time of killing if necessary. 

There has been on the killing grounds since 1900 a constant struggle on the part of 
the leasing company in the closing years of its concession to get every possible skin 
from the declining herd. Its work has been aided by a high arbitrary legal quota and 
by a lowered minimum weight of skin, enabling it to gradually anticipate the quotas 
of succeeding years by killing younger animals. As a result there has occurred in 
these years probably the closest killing to which the herd has ever been subjected. 
Aside from the diminished supply of male life on the breeding grounds in 1904, this 
is shown in the fact that though the herd has declined two-thirds in size, the quota has 
never fallen more than one-third in size as compared with that of 1897. 

Opposed to this struggle of the lessees has been the counter struggle of the Govern- 
ment's representatives to rescue a breeding reserve. Fortunately it has been suc- 
cessful. 

The yearlings of both sexes for the season must number about 12,000 each. 

This question of the proportion of the sexeo surviving to killable and breeding age 
is a fundamental one. * * * During the present season and for some seasons past 
a minimum of 5 pounds has been in force and skins taken ranging in weight all the 
way from 4 to 14$ pounds, bringing all classes of animals from yearlings to 4-year-olds 
into the quota. 

The result of this manner of killing is that we have no clear idea from the quota of 
the number of younger animals belonging to the herd. From the irregularity of the 
movements of the yearlings of both sexes, and the 2-year-old cows, they can not be 
counted or otherwise accurately estimated on the rookeries. {Report of the special 
investigation ordered by Charles Nagel, Secretary of Comm.erce and Labor; filed Sept. 
30, 1909, by Geo. A. Clark, pp. 850-851, 866, Appendix A, June ?A, 1911. House Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

For this change in 1909, from serving the lessees in 1896, Clark's 
report was suppressed, and edited by the lessees' men, Bowers and 
Lembkey, thus, November 17, 1909: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, November 17, 1909. 
Mr. W. I. Lembkey, 

Bureau of Fisheries, Washington, D. C. 
Sir: Assuming that you have read and carefully considered the fur-seal report 
recently made by Mr. George A. Clark, who visited the islands during the past summer, 
I desire that you prepare a statement of your views regarding the report, particularly 
with reference to such data and conclusions contained therein as do not agree with 
your understanding of the facts and conditions. 

Kindly let me have this statement in form convenient for use at the conference of 
the advisory board next Tuesday. 

Respectfully, Geo. M. Bowers, 

Commissioner. 

This baneful result of Dr. Jordan's work in 1896-97, which was to 
assert positively that no killing by the lessees had been at fault or 
was the cause of the decline of the fur-seal herd or would be, is thus 
squarely admitted by his own man, in 1909 — this man, Geo. A. 
Clark. 

Leading up to this killing without any restraint (as stated truly 
by Clark) in 1896, and continued to 1909, by the lessees, is the fol- 
lowing inside light on the cause and warrant which permitted that 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 2? 

illegal work to be eagerly and energetically prosecuted by both 
lessees and agents of the Government concerned, to wit: 

Washington, D. C, September 25, 1900. 
It is understood in this year's catch there is a much larger number than usual of 
2-year-olds; the officials are very anxious that the young males in the herd should 
be weeded out as closely as possible, and as has been stated. * * * The depart- 
ment would be glad if a way could be found to induce the lessees to loll a considerable 
number of the 5-year-old bulls. (Fur Trade Review: New York City, October, 
1900, p. 513.) 

This utterly absurd and untruthful statement being made to con- 
ceal the truth that during this very season of 1900, there were so few 
2-year-olds and 3-year-olds, and still fewer 4-year-olds, with no 
5-year-olds left, that the lessees had issued orders to get every year- 
ling seal that hauled out, every one save the "runts" (i. e., the 
"Ex. Ex>Sm. Pups"). 

Then, to soberly and boldly come into the presence of the House 
committee, and swear that no yearlings had ever been killed, from 
May 31, 1911, until the truth had been forced out of them April 13, 
1912, was the business of Secretary Charles Nagel and his entire 
staff of fur-seal officials and "experts." 

PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF UNLAWFUL TAKING OF YEARLING 

SEALSKINS, 1896-1912. 

That Charles Nagel, Geo. M. Bowers, Barton W. Evermann, Dr. 
David Starr Jordan, Geo. A. Clark, and the entire fur-seal service 
under their control had full and authoritative knowledge of the real 
weights of one, two, three, four, five, and six year old sealskins 
when fresh removed and properly skinned for salt curing, is well proven 
by the following facts of official record in the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, when they prosecuted and directed the killing of fur 
seals on the Pribilof Islands during the seasons of 1909, 1910, 1911, 
1912, and 1913, to wit: 

I. On April 17, 1874, Congress passed an act, which was approved 
on the 22d following, entitled "An act to enable the Secretary of the 
Treasury to gather authentic information in regard to the condition 
of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, and for other purposes," etc. 

II. In obedience to the order of this act the Secretary appointed 
and instructed a special agent charged with that duty; his report was 
rendered to the Secretary November 16 following, and the Secretary, 
in June, 1875, published it as the accepted and fully established 
authority on all questions regarding the fur-seal herd and the con- 
duct of the public business on the seal islands of Alaska. This 
official publication is entitled "A Report Upon the Condition of Af- 
fairs in the Territory of Alaska: November 16, 1874. 8vo. pp. 277. 
Washington. Government Printing Office. 1875. By Henry W. 
Elliott, special agent Treasury Department." 

This was printed, and bound in cloth beards, and distributed by 
the department to all of its customs agents on the Pacific coast and in 
Alaska, on the seal islands, and very generally to the customs agents 
of the department in Washington, D. C, New England, New York, and 
Baltimore. 



28 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



III. On page 150 of this publication is the following table of the 
measurements and weights of fur seals, one, two, three, four, five, and 
six years old, and of their skins when removed from their bodies : 

Table showing the weight, size, and growth of the fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), from the 
pup to the adult, male and female. 



Age. 


Length. 


Girth. 


Gross 

weight of 

body. 


Weight 
of skin. 


Remarks. 


1 week 


Inches. 
12-14 

24 

38 

45 
52 
58 
65 
72 
75-80 


Inches. 
10-10* 

25 

25 

30 
36 
42 
52 
64 
70-75 


Pounds. 
6-7J 

39 

39 

58 

87 

135 

200 

280 

400-500 


Pounds. 
li 

3 

4* 

5! 

7 

12 

16 

25 

45-50 


A male and female, being the only ones of the 

class handled, June 20, 1873. 
A mean of 10 examples, males and females, 

alike in size, Nov. 28, 1872. 
A mean of 6 examples, males and females, 

alike in size, July 14, 1873. 
A mean of 30 examples, all males, July 24,1873 . 
A mean of 32 examples,all males, July 24, 1873. 
A mean of 10 examples,all males, July 24, 1873. 
A mean of 5 examples, all males, July 24, 1873. 
A mean of 3 examples, all males, July 24, 1873. 
An estimate only, calculating on their weight 

when fat, and early in the season. 


6 months 

1 year 


2 years 


3 years 


4 years 


5 years 


6 years 


8 to 20 years 



On May 31, 1911, Mr. Henry W. Elliott made the following sworn 
statement to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department 
of Commerce and Labor (Hearing No. 1, pp. 12, 13, House Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. & Labor), to wit (Secretary Nagel was present) : 

Mr. Elliott. I want the committee to understand the part which was taken by 
the lessees in 1872, with the Treasury agents, of whom I was one, in fixing an official 
standard whereby we could recognize every seal officially reported to the Treasury 
Department as it was sold in London, because the London classifications were dif- 
ferent from ours as to phraseology. 

The London people knew nothing and still know nothing about the age of seals, 
and they cared nothing about it. They were interested in the size and the quality. 
They ascertained and formed their idea of the skin's value primarily by its measure- 
ment, and, secondly, by its weight. The weight would vary. Sometimes more 
salt and blubber are used, and sometimes less. But the measurements were reason- 
ably steady and constant. They measure their sealskins. We weighed ours on the 
islands. To reconcile those differences, it became very important in 1872 to know 
exactly what we were doing on the islands, so that we would understand exactly what 
they were doing in London when thej sold them. I want the committee to fix this 
in their minds, because the whole thing turns on this proposition. I said to the 
superintendent, "Why do you kill all those big seals? Do they ask you to kill all 
the big seals and let all these smaller seals go? Why don't you take them all?" He 
said, "They do not want them. They want those large seals. They call them 'mid- 
dlings' and 'smalls,' etc." Then I said, "Can we not have some arrangement made 
Whereby we can avoid this culling of the herd? Don't you see, Dr. Mclntyre, in a short 
time, if this is kept up, that no good male seal will ever get past your firing line to 
go onto the breeding rookeries?" He said, "Oh, yes, Brother Elliott, but just look 
at them out there — millions of them. You do not need to worry about that." 

Well, I admitted that there was no need to worry then, but I said to my associ- 
ates: "Gentlemen, we have got to have some understanding when we officially report 
to our Government what the grades of these seals are which the lessees are killing, 
so we can trace the record of their work from the islands to London and back again. 
Let us get together now and form a complete agreement as to what constitutes the 
skin of a 'yearling' seal, the skin of a '2-year-old,' and a '3-year-old.' and a '4-year- 
old, a '5-year-old,' and so on." We worked over that thing through the whole sea- 
son of 1872. That was something that these men took hold of with a great deal of 
pleasure. We renewed this discussion, comparison, and study on the skin weights, 
ages, etc., of the seals in 1873. Mr. Mclntyre went to London and got the weights 
and measurements of a set of skins, which he took over as samples, of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 
5 year olds. He brought them back to us with the stamp on them as "small pups," 
and so on. So there was no doubt of what we were doing. Officially, we had no 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 29 

business with the sale or nomenclature of the skins in London. So, therefore, we 
eliminated that from our report, and we spoke of the settled standard on the islands; 
that they killed "prime," or "short" skins or "7-pound" or "6-pound" skins, as 
the case might be. We never alluded to them as being "middlings" or "smalls." 
We prepared a table, which you will find on page 81 of Special Bulletin No. 176 of 
the United States Fish Commission. That is the official publication which was agreed 
upon by the four Treasury agents with whom I was associated, the seven agents of 
the lessees (who were very much interested, indeed, in what we agreed upon), and 
a special commissioner of the U-nited States, Lieut. Commander Washburn Maynard, 
United States Navy, who was with me in 1874. In that table you will find that a 
"yearling" seal weighs Ah pounds. 

Mr. .Townsend. You mean the pelt or hide? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; with a small amount of blubber which is attached, varying all 
the way from a quarter of a pound to a pound, as the agent orders it "loaded." 

In 1882 the elaborated and final notes of Mr. Elliott's work of 1874, 
published by the Department of the Treasury in 1875, were again 
republished by order of the Government in Volume VIII, Tenth 
Census, United States of America, and in Special Bulletin No. 176. 
The original table, as above, of 1874-75 publicationis on page 46. 
Then on page 81 appears the elaboration of those grades of fur which 
belong to the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old skins, as follows, to wit: 

GRADATION OF THE FUR OF CALLORHINUS URSINUS. 

The gradation of the fur of Callorhinus may, perhaps, be best presented in the 
following manner: 

One-year-old male, well grown, at July 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as to 
uniform length and thickness and evenness of distribution; it is lighter in color and 
softer in texture than hereafter during the life of the animal; average weight of skin 
as removed by the sealers from the carcass, A\ pounds. 

Two-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as 
to even length and thickness and uniformity of distribution; it has now attained the 
darker buff and fawn color, sometimes almost brown, which it retains throughout the 
rest of the life of the animal; it is slightly and perceptibly firmer and stiff er than it 
was last year, not being at all "fluffy" as in the yearling dress now; average weight of 
skin as taken from the body, h\ pounds. 

Three-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as 
to even length, but a shade longer over the shoulders, where the incipient "wig" is 
forming; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribution; this is the 
very best grade of pelt which the seal affords during its life; average weight of skin, 
as taken from the body, 7 pounds. 

Four-year-old male, well grown, at June 1 of every season: Fur fully developed as 
to even length, except a decided advance in length and perceptible stiffness over the 
shoulders, in the "wig"; otherwise perfectly uniform in thickness and even distribu- 
tion ; this grade is almost as safe to take and as good as in the 3-year-old ; average weight 
of skin, as removed, 12 pounds. 

Five-year-old male, well grown, at May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully devel- 
oped, but much longer and decidedly coarser in the "wig" region; otherwise uniform 
in thickness and distribution; the coarseness of the fur over the shoulders and dispro- 
portionate length thereon destroys that uniformity necessary for rating Al in the 
market; in fact, it does not pay to take this skin; average weight, 16 pounds. 

Six-year-old male, well grown, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully 
developed, still longer and stiffer in the "wig" region, with a slightly thinner dis- 
tribution over the post-dorsal region, and shorter; this skin is never taken — it is 
profitless; average weight, 25 pounds. 

Seven-year-old and upward male, from May to June 1 of every season: Fur fully 
developed, but very unevenly distributed, being relatively scant and short over 
the posterior dorsal region, while it is twice as long and very coarse in the covering 
to the shoulders especially and the neck and chest; skins are valueless to the fur 
trade; weight, 45 to 60 pounds. 

Then follows, on page 168, same publication, the following recapit«r 
ulation of the above-cited growth and weights of fur seals. 



so 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Table showing the relative growth, weight, etc., of the fur seals. 
^Compiled from the field notes of the author, made upon the killing grounds of St. George and St. Paul.] 



Growth of fair average example. 



1 day 


6 months. 


1 year 


2 years 


old. 


old. 


old. 


old. 


12-13 


24 


38 


45 


12-13 


24 


37 


m 


9-10J 


25 


25 


30 


9-10 


25 


25 


30 


5- 7§ 


39 


40 


58 


5- 7 


39 


39 


56 



3 years 
old. 



Length: 1 

Callorhinus ursinus (male) inches 

Callorhinus ursinus (female) do. . 

Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3 

Callorhinus ursinus (male) do. . 

Callorhinus ursinus ( female) do . . 

Weight (avoirdupois): i 

Callorhinus ursinus (male) pounds 

Callorhinus ursinus (female) do. . 



Growth of fair average example. 


4 years 
old. 


5 years 
old. 


6 years 
old. 


7 vears 
old. 


8 years 
old. 


Length: 1 

Collorhinus ursinus (male) 


inches.. 
do.... 

do.... 
do.... 

pounds., 
do.... 


58 
50 

42 
36 

135 
62 


65 
( 2 ) 

52 
37 

200 

75 


72 


75-80 


( 2 ) 


Girth immediately behind fore-flippers: 3 
Callorhinus ursinus (male) 


64 
( 2 ) 

280-350 

( 2 ) 


70-80 


80-84 


Weight (avoirdupois): 4 

Callorhinus ursinus (male) 


400-500 


500-600 









1 Direct from tip of nose to root of tail. 

2 Ceases. 

s Eight year old citation an estimate only. 

4 Seven and 8 year estimates are not based upon actual weights; an opinion merely. 

Note. — All fur seals, from yearlings to puberty, are termed "bachelors," or "holluschickie,' : and all 
male fur seals from the age of 5 years on are termed ("virile") bulls, or "seacatchie." All female 
fur seals from 1 year and upward are termed "cows," or "matkamie" ("mothers"). All the young under 
yearlings are termed "pups," or "kotiche" ("little cats"). 

Since this publication by the Government of the above tables of 
fur seal skin weights in 1875 and 1882, there has been no other 
attempt made to do so. There has been no witness before the House 
committee who has been able to show that an error of any kind is 
published in those tables. 

The Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, as well as the Carlisle rules of 
May 14, 1896, were based upon those records of the weights of fur- 
seal skins taken from seals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years old. 

The attempt made to deny the accuracy of these tables by Nagel's 
confederates, Bowers, Lembkey, Evermann, and Lucas, ended 
instantly when those men were put under oath. Bowers declared he 
did not know what a yearling skin weighed. Lembkey has admitted 
its weight was 4£ pounds. He testified as follows : 

Mr. Lembkey. I have taken the weights on the island of all seal skins weighed 
there. 

Mr. Elliott. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of 
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the 
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there. 

Mr. Elliott. What is the weight of a yearling fur seal skin? 

Mr. Lembkey. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up 
to 4 or 4| pounds. (Hearing No. 9; p. 435, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

No other member of the advisory board save Lembkey knew what 
a yearling seal skin weighed or measured, and all confessed their 
ignorance under oath to the committee. (See pp. 914-919; hearing 
No. 14, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp., Dept. C. & L.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 31 

Therefore when Secretary Straus in 1906, 1907, and 1908, and 
Secretary Nagel were plainly and clearly advised of the fact that 
their agents and the seal contractors or lessees were busy in violating 
the regulations of the Government on the seal islands, and falsely 
certifying the illegal catch of yearling male and female seals into 
them as "the skins of male seals not under 2 years of age," it was 
their sworn duty to have investigated into that fraud at once. 

They did not; they shirked the responsibility; first, as Mr. Straus 
did, and who threw it upon an advisory board of "scientists," who, 
in turn, shamefully failed to do their duty in the premises, and who 
also found that Secretary Nagel wanted them to shield those men 
who had been guilty of that criminal trespass upon the fur-seal herd 
of Alaska. Having found this spirit of Nagel, these scientists weakly 
and improperly allowed their names to be used by Nagel as his justi- 
fication, or "high scientific" authority for continuing that fraudulent 
killing. 

Observe the manner in which Charles Nagel uses these "scientists" 
as "experts" to justify his ruinous and illegal slaughter of the year- 
ling male and female seals annually. When taxed with this crime, 
he says to Senator Dixon, Chairman Senate Committee on Conserva- 
tion of National Resources; 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Elliott. Here is something that will interest you, because politicians and 
lawyers have a regard for "scientists" that is really unduly exalted. Most scientists 
are not as wise as some people wiser than they are, seem to think they are. Here is 
a letter from Secretary Charles Nagel in answer to an inquiry by the Committee on 
Conservation of National Resources as to his authority for his work of killing fur seals 
on the Pribilof Islands in violation of law and rules, and who puts this killing as done 
squarely upon Jordan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al.: 

(Copy.) 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, January 14, 1911. 

My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing Sen- 
ate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled "An act to protect the seal fisheries of 
Alaska, and for other purposes. ' ' 

The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period 
of five years from and after the 1st day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your 
committee last year I have had some occasion to consider this question with the 
result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened. 

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any 
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is 
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me 
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number of 
female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male 
seals killed by the Government. If that be true, one and perhaps the chief argu- 
ment which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation. 

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso- 
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure 
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per- 
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am 
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report 
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion. 

I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal 
killing, namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign countries 
as proof of our disinterestedness, and that such a course would serve to promote the 
consiunmation of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of 
course, advocate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Depart- 
ment that such a course on our part would have the slightest bearing upon pending 



32 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

negotiations. I can not undertake to speak upon this phase of the question, but no 
doubt that information can be readily obtained from the State Department. 

I am glad to say that the results of the first year's experience under the law enacted 
latst year are now at hand. Compared with the amounts received under the contract 
system the showing is, I think, a very satisfactory one. At the same time I would 
not be understood as saying that a gain in the receipt of a few hundred thousand dollars 
ought to be conclusive in determining the Government's policy. On the contrary, 
I am of the opinion that the primary consideration to have in mind is one of conserva- 
tion, namely, the preservation of the herds. If I could believe that the policy which 
the Government now pursues in any sense endangers the herds I should advocate 
a change. My recommendation with respect to the bill now pending is based upon 
the opinion that the Government is now killing only such male seals as may be 
regarded as surplus, and that the preservation of the herds is not in any degree affected 
by this policy. 

If it is proposed to have a hearing upon this bill I respectfully ask that as much 
notice as possible be given, so that I may make sure to have present those representa- 
tives of the bureau and such members of the boards and commissions as are more 
especially conversant with the question. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

(Signed) Charles Nagel. 

Hon. Joseph M. Dixon, 

United States Senate. 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 914-918, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

What did "those representatives of the bureau and such members 
of the boards and commissions," when put under oath and duly 
examined, say ? 

Why, each and every one of them, save Lembkey, declared them- 
selves totally ignorant of what the killing of a yearling seal meant; 
they did not know what its size or its skin weight was; they did not 
know what Bowers, Nagel, and Lembkey were doing. 

But Lembkey knew — and the truth was extorted from this most 
unwilling and shifty and evasive witness under close, determined 
cross-examination — Nagel was killing and had been killing yearling 
seals, females and males alike, by thousands and tens of thousands 
in 1909-10; yes, until checked by the law of August 24, 1912, from 
further illegal and ruinous slaughter. 

Further proof of the guilty knowledge of the Bureau of Fisheries 
and of the advisory board on fur-seal service of the real and proper 
weights of sealskins when correctly removed from the bodies of 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 year old seals, is given in the following letter written 
to the President of the United States by Dr. David Starr Jordan, 
chairman of said board. 

Leland Stanford Junior University, 

Office of the President, 
Stanford University, Cal., January 16, 1906. 
Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, 

The White House, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: * * * If the memorandum referred to by Mr. Elliott as the Hitch- 
cock rules of 1904 be enforced, as I suppose they have been, the matter will soon 
regulate itself. * * * I note that Mr. Elliott states with reference to the "Hitch- 
cock rules" that "the Department of Commerce and Labor engaged to order them" 
at his instance. This may be true, but these rules were drawn up by myself in Mr. 
Hitchcock's office in 1904. They seemed to me to represent a fair conservatism, and it 
is gratifying to find that for once I was in agreement with Mr. Elliott in a matter in- 
volving executive procedure. 

* . * ■* * * * * 

Very respectfully, yours, 

David Starr Jordan, 
Former Commissioner in Charge Fur Seal Investigations. 

(Appendix A, p. 331, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 33 

Here is the unqualified statement made by Dr. Jordan that he has 
fully agreed upon a minimum weight of "5£ pounds" for skins to be 
taken on the Pribilof Islands; that this order represents "a fair con- 
servation/' and he is gratified to find "that for once" he "was in 
agreement with Mr. Elliott" on this "matter involving executive 
procedure." 

With that full knowledge and great satisfaction on his part, over 
the fact that "5J pounds" was a minimum weight of a correctly 
skinned seal's pelt which could be safely and properly taken without 
injury to the herd, January 16, 1906, as above declared, why did this 
chief authority on March 9, 1906, immediately following, agree to the 
lowering of this minimum weight to "5 pounds" on that day? And 
that lowering down done by his fellow-citizen and neighbor, Victor 
Metcalf, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, who lived only a few 
miles away from Palo Alto, at Oaklancl, Cal.! 

Why did he agree to it ? And still more and worse for Dr. Jordan 
and Secretary Charles Nagel's agents, as well as for Nagel himself, on 
November 23, 1909, these men all united in a unanimous recom- 
mendation that this improper "5-pound" minimum for seal pelts be 
continued in a new lease for the islands to be made May 1, 1910! 

The following sworn testimony proves it, to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. On November 23, 1909, there was a meeting of the advisory board 
with the fur-seal board and the Commissioner of Fisheries and Deputy Commissioner 
of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M. Smith), at which were present also Mr. Chichester and Mr. 
George A. Clark. After mature deliberation these gentlemen unanimously agreed 
upon the following recommendations : 

1. It is recommended that the agent in charge, fur-seal service, shall, under the 
direction of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, have full power to limit or restrict 
the killing of fur seals and blue foxes on the Pribilof Islands to any extent necessary 
and that no specified quota be indicated in the lease. 

2. It is recommended that, for the present, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 8$ 
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be taken, and that not more than 95 per cent of the 
3-vear-old male seals be killed in any one year. (Hearing No. 2, p. 110, July 9, 1911, 
H" Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

Here is the change of a "fair" and proper minimum weight of 5£ 
pounds to one of "5 pounds," improperly made, ordered so as to 
facilitate the "loading" of yearling 4^-pound skins into the 2-year- 
old class or 5J-pound skins. 

In spite of all the protests made since 1906 against this trick of 
regulation continuing so as to permit an easier criminal trespass by 
the lessees upon the seal herd, yet in 1909, these men in charge who 
are public officials, all sworn to protect and conserve that fine public 
property on the seal islands of Alaska, actually combined with the 
lessees, en November 23, and sought to continue that public imposi- 
tion in a new lease. 

Charles Nagel, David Starr Jordan, George M. Bowers, George A. 
Clark, B. W. Evermann, W. I. Lembkey, Isaac Liebes, S. B. Elkins, 
and D. O. Mills all had then guilty knowledge of this trespass by 
them, as above cited, in the past, in the present, and for the future, 
when this meeting was held November 23, 1909, in the city of Wash- 
ington, D. C, office of the United States Commission of Fisheries, and 
then adjourned to Charles Nagel's office in the Department of Com- 
merce Building the same day. 

The men who were present at this remarkable meeting and voted 
as a unit to renew that lease and public imposition were David Starr 
21588—13 3 



34 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

Jordan, Leonhard Stejneger, Frederic A. Lucas, Edwin A. Sims, 
Charles H. Townsend, Barton Warren Evermann, Walter I. Lembkey, 
Millard C. Marsh, George M. Bowers, Hugh M. Smith, H. D. Chiches- 
ter, and George A. Clark. (See the official record of that presence 
and vote, p. 814, Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L., June 24, 
1911.) 

Secretary Nagel, in his letter to Senator Dixon dated January 14, 

1911, and before he issued his orders through Bowers and Lembkey 
to kill seals on the Pribilof Islands, 12,002 of them in June and July 
following, has this to say in justification of that order for this killing 
of 6,247 yearling seals, which followed his directions. 

Remember he had the specific protest of April 26, 1909, and proof 
of its charge September 30, 1909, before him, against the work of 
his agents in 1909 and 1910 — that work of killing female and male 
yearling seals in violation of the law, and of the regulations pledged 
to the Congress of the United States March 9, 1904 (the Hitchcock 
rules). With those protests and proof thereof in his hands, he stated 
to the Senate committee January 14, 1911 : 

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any 
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is 
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me 
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number 
of female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male 
seals killed by the Government. If that the true, one and perhaps the chief argument 
which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation. 

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all -the female seals were abso- 
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure 
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per- 
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am 
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report, 
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion. 

Here he tells the committee that he believes in killing those small 
seals "in the manner in which it is being done." 

Then he declares that while his "personal judgment is without 
value, I am relying upon the advice of experts who have been ap- 
pointed to inquire and report, and who have given the department 
the benefit of their opinion." 

When those "experts," Stejneger, Merriam, Townsend, Lucas, and 
Evermann came up before the House committee in April and May, 

1912, each and every one of them declared themselves ignorant of 
what Nagel had done with regard to killing yearling seals. They 
did not know what a yearling sealskin was. (See Hearing No. 14, 
pp. 914-919, July 25, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

When Secretary Nagel in order to fortify himself against attack, 
called the "advisory board on fur seal service" into session at Wash- 
ington, D.C., November 23, 1909, and got from that body of " experts" 
(Jordan, Lucas, Townsend, Evermann, Bowers, Hugh Smith, Stej- 
neger, Clark, and Lembkey) the "unanimous recommendation" 
that he renew the seal lease and continue this improper killing of 95 
per cent of the male life, it will be noticed that Dr. C. Hartt Merriam 
and Frank H. Hitchcock did not attend and join in that " unanimous" 
recommendation. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 35 

The reason why Dr. Merriam did not is perhaps best stated in his 
testimony on May 4, 1912, to the House committee. He was opposed 
to the killing of yearling seals under any circumstances, to wit: 

Mr. McGuire. Then, in case anyone in the House of Representatives has used 
your name as a person who would be opposed to the killing on the islands they were 
wrong about your position? 

Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I have never taken any such position. I have 
always held the contrary. I have always stated, since the first time I went there, 
that conservative killing on the islands was a benefit to the herd and not an injury, 
but I should not allow the killing of yearlings under any circumstances, and I should 
not kill more than 75 per cent of the young on land at any one time. I would be sure 
to leave more than enough for possible contingencies. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 694-695, 
May 4, 1912. H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

So it is very evident that Secretary Nagel did not take the advice 
of Dr. Merriam, and as for Mr. Hitchcock, his well-known opposition 
to this violation of the rules of the department — the Hitchcock rules 
of May 1, 1904, needs no further comment here. 

Then why did Secretary Nagel persist in killing these yearling 
seals, males and females alike? Of 7,333 of them in 1910 and 6,247 
of them in 1911? 

Because there was nothing left that the agents could find to kill, 
and this continued improper killing would make the false reports of 
1906, 1907, 1908, and 1909, which the lessees had written, "regular," 
and hide the sudden collapse in killing which would appear instantly 
if no yearlings were taken in 1910; also in 1911. 

That is why he persisted in this criminal trespass — to prevent the 
sudden exposure of it by contrast between the unlawful killing of 1909 
with a lawful killing in 1910; and again in 1911. 

SAMPLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC "AUTHORITY" QUOTED BY SECRETARY 
CHARLES NAGEL, JAN. 14, 1911, AS HIS WARRANT FOR KILLING 7,733 
YEARLINGS IN 1910. 

The peculiar and particular "science" which those lawless lessees 
and their agents on the islands and in Washington had complete 
regard for in the persons of Dr. Jordan and his assistants, is well 
exhibited in Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, whose remarkably frank testi- 
mony follows. 

Stejneger, strangely enough, has no knowledge of what the agents 
of the Bureau of Fisheries, Bowers, et al., have been doing as to illegal 
killing of yearling seals on the Pribilof Islands, season of 1910. And 
he had no official consultation with Bowers or Nagel about it, he 
swears. 

Then, in the next breath, he declares that if the law did not pre- 
vent, he would kill yearlings. In other words, he would do exactly 
as Bowers and Nagel did do. 

Dr. Stejneger is unfortunate in his "scientific" advice to those men 
when he says : 

I hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July — that is the season prac- 
tically when the killing is done — in the season you can kill all the males without 
any detriment to the herd. I will say all the usable skins, three years and less; that 
is my opinion, my deliberate opinion. 

The Chairman. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised 
Mr. Bowers? 

Dr. Stejneger. I may have said that very thing. 

The Chairman. Kill all the killable seals? 



36 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Elliott. That is, all he can find. 

Dr. Stejneger. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a 
thing, and should advise it now. 

He actually goes to the following extreme limit of license to destroy, 
to wit : 

Investigation of Fur-Seal Industry of Alaska. 

Committee on Expenditures in the 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

House of Representatives, 

Saturday, May 4, 1912. 

The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 
Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire. 

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER. 

Leonhard Stejneger, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as 
follows: x 

The Chairman. Do you know whether, of your own personal knowledge, seals have 
been killed that were too small or too young, under the act of Congress? 

Dr. Stejneger. I do not know, because I have not been on the island since 1897 — 
since 1896. 

If I may be allowed to make a statement, since you ask whether I had any statement 
to make, the law is the law, and has to be lived up to; but whether seal is killed as 
1-year old or when older could not affect the seal herd to any extent and could not 
hurt it at all; you might just as well kill 1-year olds or 2-year olds or 3-year olds. As 
a matter of fact, you could not kill as large a percentage of 1-year olds as of 2 or 3 year 
olds. The 1-year olds would be 2-year olds the next year, and then you would kill 
them anyhow. The Government would realize a little less money for the smaller 
skins. That would be the whole result. 

The Chairman. Dr. Evermann, do you or anyone else wish to ask the doctor any 
questions? 

Dr. Evermann. I have no questions. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions? 

Mr. Elliott. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the 
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. I could not tell you. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. No. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling 
seal as taken from the body? 

Dr. Stejneger. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling 
seal killed on the American islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the 
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910? _ 

Dr. Stejneger. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers? 

Mr. Elliott. Did Mr. Bowers 

Dr. Stejneger. Not outside of what I have said in the board. 

Mr. Elliott. No, no. I asked you, did Mr. Bowers advise with you? 

Dr. Stejneger. Personally? 

Mr. Elliott. Not when he issued his order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910? 

Dr. Stejneger. I do not quite understand whether it was with me personally or 
as a member of the board. ; 

Mr. Elliott. Well, as a member of the board, do you remember any consultation 
with him about issuing those orders? 

Dr. Stejneger. No; I do not remember. 

i He makes a flat statement that if the law did not prevent, he would kill yearlings. This "scientist" 
has been loudly finding fault with the pelagic sealers because they kill female seals, yet he, too, would kill 
female seals, for half of the yearlings are females. This is "science" with a vengeance, and just the kind 
that Nagel, Bowers, Lembkey, and Jordan appreciate as the tools of the lessees— Mills, Elkins, and Lieber. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 37 

Mr. Elliott. Then, Dr. Stejneger, I have no further questions to ask you, except 
this: I would like to ask about the Fur Trade Review, issue of September, 1900. 
On pages 456, 457, and 458 you are cited as the authority for the following [reading]: 

"stejneger's 'authority' for excessive land killing. 

"Washington, May 25, 1901. 

"The best authorities here (Stejneger and the Treasury officials) agree that there is 
no necessity for a limit to the killing of the lessees on the islands for two reasons: First, 
because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the taking of aa 
many killable males per annum as can be found; and, second, because * * * the 
proposed agreement between the United States and Great Britain would leave this 
Government the sole proprietor of the sealing industrv in the eastern half of the 
Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea." (Fur Trade Review, June, 1901, pp. 285-286.) 

Do you still think it is the best thing to do to kill everything that can be found 
up there? 

Dr. Stejneger. It depends upon the way — the exact words — in which you put it. 

Mr. Elliott. Here is the sentiment; is this ybur idea? — 

"That there is no necessity to the limit, of the killing of the lessees on the islands 
* * * because it is conceded that the welfare of the present herd requires the 
taking of as many killable males per annum as can be found." 

Dr. Stejneger. The point is "as can be found." If you eliminate that, I can 
well conceive that I had advised as stated. 

Mr. Elliott. I am willing. You can eliminate everything and anything you have 
done. I do not object. But I want to know if you gave him that impression, that 
he could go up and kill everything he could find and do no harm. 

Dr. Stejneger. Not everything and "do no harm." 

Mr. Elliott. I mean "killable seaR" 

Dr. Stejneger. Killable seals? 

Mr. Elliott. I mean killable seals — everything he could find. 

Dr. Stejneger. That must hp within the proper season for the killing. 

Mr. Elliott. 1910. 

Dr. Stejneger. You want to pin me down to 

Mr. Elliott. You are a scientist, and you can not be pinned down. 

The Chairman. He is referring to the statement. 

Dr. Stejneger. I have nothing to do with that. It is hearsay of a report of some- 
thing; I have nothing to do with that. 

Mr. Elliott. I ask you if you hold those views? 

Dr. Stejneger. Let me state what I hold and what I don't hold, in my own words; 
I hold that you can kill, in the months of June and July — that is the season practically 
when the killing is done — in the season you can kill all the males without any detri- 
ment to the herd. I will say all the usable skins, three years and less; that is my 
opinion, my deliberate opinion. 

The Chairman. But I understood Prof. Elliott to ask you whether you advised Mr. 
Bowers. 

Dr. Stejneger. I may have said that very thing. 

The Chairman. Kill all the killable seals? 

Mr. Elliott. That is, all he can find. 

Dr. Stejneger. With the limitation if in season. I undoubtedly advised such a 
thing, and should advise it now. 

The Chairman. Do you think all the killable seals should be taken for the good of 
the herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. All the killable seals that you can take there at that time. The 
fact is that you can not take all of the killable seals. 

The Chairman. It seems to me — I am only trying to clear it up so that we will not 
have a misunderstanding when it is over — you should state whether you think it is 
best for the herd to take all of the killable seals. 

Dr. Stejneger. With that reservation, all the killable seals that you can kill within 
the season. I do not mean that you can 

The Chairman. That you can find? 

Dr. Stejneger. The ones that you can catch. 

Mr. Elliott. That is perfectly clear; that is all I wanted. 



38 FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

THE SUBORNATION OF SCIENCE TO SERVE A CRIMINAL TRESPASS 
ON THE FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

(To justify the killing of all the young male seals, the false argu- 
ment was used that if they did not do so they would only grow up, go 
onto the breeding grounds, fight there, "and tear the cows to pieces 
and trample the pups to death." Dr. Stejneger was one of the scien- 
tific authorities quoted for this nonsense and fraud.) 

Dr. Stejneger denies in his report of 1898, his own sworn statement 
made to the House committee of May 4, 1912, in re trampled pups. 
He does so in the most explicit language, and he is now quoted below 
from his finished and " elaborate report," which he handed to the 
chairman when he was sworn and examined. He says in it that the 
pups are not harmed by severe, prolonged trampling, to wit: 

It is certainly significant that on Bering Island over a thousand pups are yearly 
driven to the killing ground, there to be released, without any visible harm coming to 
them worth mentioning. If these newly born seals can stand to be driven three- 
fourths of a mile from Kishotchnoye and to be repeatedly trampled upon by the larger 
ones piling up four high or more on top of them, it stands to reason that the vigorous 
holustiaki, or even the females as a whole, can suffer but little injury from the same 
cause. (The Fur-Seal Investigations, Pt. IV, 1898, p. 101, by Leonhard Stejneger.) 

After having deliberately published the above as " facts" of his 
own observation in 1898, yet Dr. Leonhard Stejneger in 1912 denies 
it under oath to the House committee as follows. 

Witness the following sworn proof of it, to wit : 

Investigation op Fur-Seal Industry of Alaska. 

Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, 

House of Representatives, 

Saturday, May 4, 1912. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire. 

STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER. 

Leonard Stejneger, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as 
follows: 

Dr. Stejneger. In that case, I should say I first came to the Commander Islands in 
1882 and stayed until the fall of 1883, remaining the winter. 

Mr. McGuire. Continuously? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes. I saw the whole business from beginning to end during two 
seasons. I mapped the rookeries, and I have made a very elaborate report on that. 
This [handing book to the chairman] gives all the data. 

In 1896 I was appointed a member of the Fur-Seal Investigation Commission, of 
which Dr. Jordan was the chairman. We went up early in the season and I stayed on 
the Pribilof Islands for 10 days with the other members of the commission and went 
all over the rookeries at that time, and did part of the counting of the rookeries on the 
American islands, and then went over to the Commander Islands again and inspected 
the rookeries there, mapped the distribution of the seals on the rookeries then as com- 
pared to what they were in 1882, 1883, and 1895. 

******* 

Mr. McGuire. According to your observation, now, Doctor, if those herds were left 
alone untouched by man, what would you regard as the principal agencies of destruc- 
tion of that animal life? 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 39 

Dr. Stejneger. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups. 
Mr. McGuire. Then, where they were left untouched until they had accumulated 
large numbers of males, would there have been trampling under those conditions? 
Dr. Stejneger. That is the greatest danger to the herd. 

* * * * * * * 

Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony with respect to the killing of the pups by the 
fighting of battles by the males is based upon not only your general information, that 
you have been able to obtain in general way, but as well upon two years' actual stay 
upon seal islands? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual observation? 

Dr. Stejneger. Surveys of the rookeries. 

Mr. McGuire. You have personally observed those conditions, have you? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 699, 700, 703.) 

On May 16, 1912, a few days following the above date of Stejneger's 
strange testimony as to the "destruction" caused by the killing of 

Eups by the trampling of them by fighting males, his own associate, 
>r. F. A. Lucas, on the Indian Commission, 1897-98, swears that he 
knows better — that he never saw a bull trample a pup to death: 

The Chairman. What experience have you had as to the fur-seal industry in 
Alaska or as a member of the advisory board? 

Dr. Lucas. I was a member of the Fur-Seal Commission in 1896 and 1897. In 1896 
I was on the islands or on the revenue cutter visiting the pelagic sealers from July 8 to 
September 5. In 1897 I was on the islands, on the revenue cutter visiting pelagic 
sealers and going to and from St. Paul and St. George from July 1 to August 17. The 
records of the work are here, Mr. Chairman [exhibiting books]. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you see up there a pup trampled to death bv a 
bull? 

Dr. Lucas. No. (Hearing No. 12, May 16, 1912, pp. 706-719.) 

DR. JORDAN CONDEMNS THE KILLING OF YEARLINGS BY THE OLD 
LESSEES IN 1889, BUT HE PERMITS AND APPROVES THAT KILLING 
BY THE NEW LESSEES IN 1896-97, AND EVEN WHEN SO DONE IN 
VIOLATION OF LAW AND REGULATIONS. 

That Dr. Jordan knew that the killing of yearlings was wrong and 
injurious to the life of the fur-seal herd, he gives the following proof 
of in his final report of February 24, 1898, to-wit: Speaking of the 
result of the work of killing by the lessees of 1870 during the last 
years of their lease, Dr. Jordan writes: 

For a time these more vigorous methods had the desired effect, but the scarcity of 
bachelors as a result of the decreasing birth rate made it necessary finally to lower 
the age for killable seals, so as to include first, the 2-year-olds, and in the end many 
of the larger yearlings, in order to secure the requisite 100,000 skins. By these 
methods it happened in 1889 that practically the whole bachelor herd of 4 years 
and under down to the yearlings was wiped out. The result was the abnormal drop 
to 21,000 in the quota of 1890. * * * 

It is not the intention here to justify the methods of killing employed in the clos- 
ing years of the Alaska Commercial Co. Such killing ought never to have been 
allowed. (Fur-Seal Inves. pt. 1, 1898, p. 124.) 

With this full understanding of the impropriety of killing those 
small seals thus given to us by Dr. Jordan, as above quoted, this gen- 
tleman actually has stultified himself by that writing as above, for he 
has approved and licensed in 1896 and 1897 the same injurious and 
illegal killing. He has done so in the following report, dated Novem- 
ber 1, 1897, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to wit: 

Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals; 
during the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was 
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been 



40 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, 1896. This year it was 
extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August 11. The quota to be 
taken was leit to our discretion, and every opportunity was given to the lessees to take 
the full product of the hauling grounds. Notwithstanding all their efforts, the quota 
of 1897 shows a decrease of 30 per cent in the class of killable seals, and when we take 
into account the increased number of drives, and the extension of the times of driving, 
the difference between the two seasons is even greater. (Fur Seal Investigations, Pre- 
liminary Report of 1897, Treas. Doc. No. 1994, p. 18, Nov. 1, 1897.) 

Again, Dr. Jordan knew what yearlings were taken for skins, 
for he described that taking in 1889 as follows, when reviewing the 
tables of killing made by the lessees in 1889 as compared with that 
killing by them in 1890. Dr. Jordan says: 

The contrast here visible between 1889 and 1890 is by no means a measure of cor- 
responding decrease in the breeding herd. The fact is that the fictitious quota of 
1889 was made up largely of yearlings which belonged properly to the quota of 1891. 
(Fur Seal Inves., 1898, pt. 1, p. 202.) 

When Dr. Jordan certified the catch of 1896 (30,000) to the Secre- 

' tary of the Treasury on November 7, 1896, as being made up of 3 and 

2 year olds, and did not tell the truth that over 8,000 of these 30,000 

skins taken by the lessees were yearlings, he knew better. (Treas. 

Doc. No. 1913, p. 21.) 

He knew better because the lessees did not take any smaller skins 
in 1896 than they did in 1899. They took the yearlings or "small 
pups" and "Ex. sm. pups" in 1889, just as Jordan says they did. They 
took the same "Small pups" and "Ex. sm. pups" in 1896 — 8,000 of 
them — and Jordan denies the fact; he denies it by ignoring it, and 
asserting that "22,000 of these" {30,000) were 3-year-olds, when in 
truth not quite 7,500 of them were. 

The London sales records, which proves the truth of Jordan's state- 
ment, that the lessees killed yearlings in 1889, also proves the untruth 
of Jordan's statement that the lessees did not kill yearlings in 1896. 
They convict Dr. Jordan of deceit in the matter and of falsifying the 
record of that killing in 1896 and 1897. 

DR. JORDAN ATTEMPTS TO DENY THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE EARLY 
ARRIVAL OF THE YEARLING SEALS ON THE HAULING GROUNDS AND 
THEIR APPEARANCE ON THE KILLING GROUNDS; HE IS FLATLY CON- 
TRADICTED BY RECORDS OF THE SAME. 

In his final report of February 24, 1898, Dr. Jordan says: 

From the killing during the present season (1896), 15,000 animals too small to kill 
were turned back. As in the case of the young bulls, some of these, perhaps many, 
were driven and redriven, several drives being made from each hauling ground during 
the season. The actual number represented by this total of rejected animals can 
not be exactly determined. From this it would seem necessary to suppose that by 
no means all the younger seals appear on the hauling grounds during the killing 
season. In fact, the records of the drives show that it is only after the middle of July 
that the yearlings begin to arrive in numbers, and by the time the killing season is 
over the great majority of the killable seals are secured, leaving the population of 
the hauling grounds almost exclusively yearlings and 2-year-olds. (Fur Seal Inves. 
pt. 1, 1898, rept. Feb. 24. p. 99.) 

With the following official "Records of the drives" staring Dr. 
Jordan in the face, it seems fairly incredible that he should have 
written so much untruth as above concerning them in re yearlings. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 41 

Wednesday. June 18, 1890. 
Made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill; killed 274; turned away 19 half-grown 
bulls. As many yearlings as choice seals killed, and half as many 2-year-olds as 
yearlings were allowed to return to the sea. This is a fair average of the work so far 
this season. (Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff. in charge of St. 
Paul Island, p. 239.) 

Monday, June 23, 1890. 

The N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill, killing 521 seals. 
Seventy-five per cent of the seals driven to the village were turned back into the 
sea; 10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds; balance yearlings. (Official Journal Chief 
Special Agent Chas. I. Goff. in charge of St. Paul Island, p. 231.) 

Tuesday, June 24, 1890. 

N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Reef and Zotoi and killed 426 seals; about 65 per 
cent of this drive was turned back into the sea, about all of these were yearlings. 
(Official Journal Chief Special Agent Chas. I. Goff, in charge of St. Paul Island, 
p. 231.) 

Thursday, June 26, 1890. 

The N. A. C. Co. made a drive of seals Southwest Bay and killed 117 seals; about 62 
per cent of those driven were turned back into the sea; of those turned away one-half 
were yearlings, one-fourth 2-year-olds, and one-fourth old bulls.. (Official Journal 
Chief Special Agent Chas. J. Goff, in charge of St. Pauls Island, p. 231.) 

Then independent of the above official record, which not only 
declares that the yearlings are out in full force as early as June 18, 
on the killing grounds, driven up with the others, we have the fol- 
lowing sworn proof of the unwarranted denial of Dr. Jordan in re 
early appearance of the yearlings, to wit: 

Mr. Elliott. Now, as to yearlings on the islands. Here is an official report detailed 
day after day during the killing season of 1890, put on the files of the Treasury Depart- 
ment, and printed, and until the 1st of December, 1907, not a line had been issued 
from the Government officialism in charge of this business — not a line that says a 
single record of this work as to the killing on those islands in 1890 is improperly stated 
here. The only objection they make to it was that I officially assumed that driving 
these young and old seals hurt them. They claimed it did not hurt them, but that 
it did them good. We will leave that open. But the killing has hurt them; they 
admit that now officially. Let me read, on page 170: 

"Monday, June 23, 1890. * * * Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up; 110 of 
them killed or one-fifth taken, or 80 per cent turned away. All under 7-pound skins, 
with the exception of a few wigged 4-year-olds and a dozen or two old bulls. This 
gives a fair average of the whole drive to-day, some 2,500 animals, since 518 only were 
taken. 

<<* * * Those turned away (nearly 2,000) were 95 per cent at least 'long' and 
'short' yearlings." 

That has never been disputed to this hour. 

"June 21, 1890. * * * At 7 a. m. I went down to the killing grounds and fol- 
lowed the podding and clubbing of the entire drive brought up from the Reef crest 
and Zoltoi Bluffs this morning. The Zoltoi pod arrived on the ground long before 
the Reef pod — two hours sooner. It was made up largely of polseecatchie and 
yearlings. 

"* * * Seventy-five per cent of this drive was rejected. Every 3 and smooth 
4 year old taken and every long 2-year-old. Nothing under or over that grade. 

"The seals released this morning were exclusively yearlings, 'short' 2-year-olds, 
and the 5 and 6 year old half bulls or polseecatchie. No 'long' 2-year-old escaped, 
and so, therefore, many 5£ and 6 pound skins will appear in this catch. 

' ' In the afternoon I took a survey of Lukannon Bay and its hauling grounds. * * * 
Thence over to Tolstoi sand dunes, where I saw about 600 or 700 yearlings, conspicu- 
ous by their white bellies. 

* * * * * * * 

"June 26, 1890 (on p. 174). I walked over to the Zapadnie killing grounds this 
morning, arriving there about 9 o'clock. The drivers had collected a squad of about 
340 holluschickie, which were clubbed thus — total 344 number driven, and num- 
ber taken, 97, or about 72 per cent unfit to take, being made up chiefly of yearlings, 
'short' 2-year-olds, and 'wigged' 4-year-olds, and 5-year up to 7-year old bulls." 



42 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

I knew what I was talking about, and so did the lessees. They rejected the year- 
lings and the short 2-year-olds. 

"June 27, 1890. The drive to-day from Middle Hill, Tolstoi, and Bobrovia Yama 
(of Tolstoi near the point) panned out as follows: Total number driven 1,652; total 
number taken 394. 

"Deduct 24 overcounted, leaves the whole number of animals driven 1,628; number 
taken 394, or 78 per cent rejected. Nothing taken under a 6-pound or 'long' 2-year- 
old skin. " 

Nothing was taken that day. 

"Sixteen of the 394 skins taken in the killing grounds, as above cited, were rejected, 
in the salt house by the company's manager because thsy were too small. They were 
normal 2-year-olds, 5§-pound skins. Perhaps they will be glad to get them later." 

They were. 

' ' June 28, 1890. The superb sealing weather still continues. The natives are bring- 
ing up a small squad from the Reef as I write (5 p. m.). 

"The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive from Reef and 
Zoltoi Bluffs, June 28, 1890: 

"Whole number of animals driven, 1,417; number taken, 203, or 85 per cent 
turned out. * * * Everything taken in this day's killing above a normal 2-year- 
old * * * i. e., all 6-pound skins and upward. 

"June 30, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive 
from Middle Hill, English Bay, Tolstoi, Lukannon, and Ketavie: 

"Whole number of animals driven, 1,262; number taken, 203, or 84J per cent re- 
jected. * * * Everything taken that was above 5^-pound skin, under those of 
the 5-year-olds and 'wigged' 4-year-olds. * * * How many of those yearlings 
and 'short ' 2-year-olds that were released this morning will again be driven before this 
season ends? Nearly all of them. 

"July 1, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of drive 
made from every section of the reef, everything in back of Zoltoi Bluffs, Garbotch, 
and the entire circuit of the reef: 

"Whole number of animals driven, 1,998; number taken, 245, or 89 per cent re- 
jected. Last drive from this place, June 28, when 85 per cent were rejected. Every- 
thing taken over a 5-pound skin and under the 'wigged ' 4 and 5 year old. pelts. Ninety 
per cent of the seals rejected to-day were yearlings.''' 1 

There are no yearlings on the islands now, we are told by these gentlemen. They 
have disappeared; they have gone to sea. There is no loss from pelagic sealing there 
now. 

"This is the largest number yet driven in any one drive from this place thus far this 
season, and the catch among the smallest. The yearlings driven before, plus the new 
arrivals, are making the ratio." 

The yearlings keep coming up and increasing this aggregate drive. 

"July 2, 1890. The following are field notes of the podding and clubbing of a drive 
made from every section of Polavina and Stony Point: 

"Whole number of animals driven, 1,929; number taken, 230, or 88-£ per cent reject- 
ed. There were also 10 "road" and "smothered" skins, which made a total of 240 
taken; last drive from this place, June 25, when 800 animals were driven and 263 
taken, or 65 per cent rejected. 

"This drive to-day covers a whole week's interval since the last drive from Pola- 
vina, and it shows that as the season advances the numbers driven rapidly increase, 
while .the proportionate catch diminishes. In other words, the new anivals, plus 
those redriven, will continue to st°adily swell the gross aggregate driven day by day 
from now on, and not proportionately increase the catch. Rather, I believe that 
the catch will markedly diminish. 

"To-day every good 2-yea--old, every 3, and every "smooth" 4-year-old was knocked 
down out of the 1,929 animals; eve-y one. Where, at this rate of killing, is the new 
blood left for the rookeries now so desperately needed there? Hardly a young bull 
left, between the effects of driving and the deadly club, save a few hundred of thosa 
demoralized and worthless half bulls, which I make note of as they come up in every 
drive; and these, the natives truly declare, will never go upon the rookeries. 

"Thus far this season every seal that is eligible in weight, froma "long" 2-year-old 
male up to 5-year-olds, has been ruthlessly slain within a few days after its appearance 
on these desolate hauling grounds of St. Paul Island . They were as ruthlessly knocked 
down last year, and to-day the yearlings and everything above to_ 5-year-olds would 
be knocked down did not the new $10.22 tax per sealskin save their' lives." 

They were afraid to take these yearlings, and they gave orders to let them alone. 
They said, "They will not pay our taxes and our expenses." 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 43 

Mr. McGuire. The point you are developing now is, as I understand it, that the 
yearlings at that time were on the islands at this certain season of the year mentioned 
hy you? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes: admittedly. 

Mr. McGuire. The claim by certain persons now is that seals of this age and type 
are not at that season found on the islands. Is that what you are developing now? 

Mr. Elliott. I am claiming that that is an untruthful and improper report to make; 
that they are not there means that they have been killed and certified falsely into 
the books of the Government as 2-year-olds. Do not make any mistake about that. 

As above quoted from Dr. Jordan's studied, elaborated, and final 
report of February 24, 1898, he gives as proof of the fact that he 
knew them — he knew the yearling seals as a class, and knew them well. 

So knowing them, he could not have failed to witness the killing 
of yearlings in 1896-1897, thousands and thousands of them, in open, 
flagrant violation of the "Carlisle Rules" of May 14, 1896, which 
were duly posted on the Pribilof Islands, June 17, 1896. 

That he knew the significance and the evil effect of killing year- 
lings in 1898 he also gives us full proof of in his final report of 
February 24, 1898. In criticizing the close and improper killing 
by the lessees during the season of 1889 he says, on page 103: 

Finally it was necessary successively to lower the grade of killable skins until, in 
1889, to get the quota of 100,000 nearly the entire bachelor herd down to and including 
most of the yearlings was taken. In 1890 the collapse came, when only 21,000 skins 
could be secured. 

With this full knowledge possessed by Dr. Jordan of what a year- 
ling seal was, and what it signified to kill down to that lowest grade, 
he actually falsifies the record of killing 30,000 seals in 1896, as 
done under his eyes. In his report of the killing on the Pribilof 
Islands during June and July, 1896, he denies that any yearling 
seals were killed, and repeats that untruth for the season's work of 
1897, on the same grounds, in the following statements, to wit: 

In 1896, 30,000 killable males were taken, 22,000 of these to the best of our informa- 
tion, being 3-year-olds. 

Think for a moment of this studied untruth — the same London 
sales records which gave Dr. Jordan his warrant for truthfully stating 
the fact that yearlings were taken in 1889, as above cited — these 
sales records of this 1896 catch of 30,000 declare- the fact that not 
quite 7,500 3 year olds were taken, and, moreover, they tell him that 
some 8,000 or 9,000 yearlings were also taken. 

In 1897 the lessees took 20,890 skins— all that they could get— 
and Jordan again stands over that work on the islands. Again he 
falsifies the record of this killing as follows: 

The quota of the year is made up practically of 3-year-old bachelors; some 2-year- 
olds are killed and some 4-year-olds, but the majority of those taken are 3-year-olds. 

Not quite 7,000 of that 20,890 skins taken in 1897 were 3-year- 
olds. More than 8,000 yearlings were again taken in its total, and 
all of those little 30-34 inch yearling skins actually "loaded" with 
blubber in 1896 and 1897, so that they weighed as much as 3-year- 
old skins or 2-year-old skins. This fraud of "loading" those little 
skins was to cover the Carlisle limit of a minimum taken ''not less 
than 6 pounds weight." 

This loading of those small skins in 1896-97, when Dr. Jordan 
was on the islands (and continued ever since), and so done then, 
first, to evade the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, could not have 



44 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

escaped Dr. Jordan's notice unless he was physically blind. He was 
not, but he actually shut his eyes to the illegal and injurious work. 

On July 24, 1913, the native sealers who took part in this "load- 
ing" of those small yearling skins in 1896-97, testified to the agents 
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of 
Commerce that this season of 1896 was the first one in which they 
ever received orders to take yearling seals, and that they have been 
taking them ever since and "loading" them also. (See pp. 93-100, 
Kept. Agents House Committee on Expenditures, Dept.of Com., 
Aug. 31, 1913.) 

Dr. Jordan, however, was not content with merely ignoring the 
fact that in 1896 he had permitted the lessees to kill more than 
8,000 yearling seals in open flagrant violation of the Carlisle rules 
of May 14, 1896; he went further. On page 206 of his Final Report 
Fur Seal Investigations, part 1, 1898, he has this studied statement 
of untruth made in review of the figures which show the daily kill- 
ing made during June and July, 1896, and also those of 1897, to wit: 

In this year (1896) more normal driving was permitted, but the increased quota is 
not wholly due to this fact * * *. 

The quota of 1897 was left indefinite under the direction of the commission, and 
the driving was planned with a view of making the quota represent the full product 
of the 1: aiding grounds. For the same reason the killing was continued into August 
(to Aug. 11). 

This is the language which Dr. Jordan uses to conceal the fact 
that in 1896 the lessees were permitted to illegally take 8,000 small 
yearling seals, and in 1897 over 7,000 of them in turn, to get the 
"full product of the hauling grounds:" 

Why did Dr. Jordan and his associates in 1896 and 1897 fail to publish a table show- 
ing the sizes and weights of fur-seal skins as they were taken from the 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 
year old seals? 

Because if they had, they would have been obliged to publish the fact that the 
lessees took 8,000 yearling sealskins in 1896, under their eyes, and in violation of the 
law and regulations published May 14, 1896. And again, that over 7,000 yearling 
skins were taken by the lessees under their eyes, and with their permission in 1897, 
in violation of those Carlisle rules of 1896. 

The lack of attention given to the subject of the sizes and weights 
of fur-seal skins which is so marked in the preliminary reports of the 
Jordan-Thompson fur-seal commission's work, and its final report, 
1898, is due to the fact that the lessees were killing yearling seals on 
St. Paul Island in 1896, when Jordan was there in full control of the 
business. 

These seal-island lessees (D. O. Mills, United States Senator Elkins, 
and the Liebes, Isaac and Hermann), could not get their quota allowed 
them of 30,000 2, 3, and 4 year old seals, they unlawfully took, there- 
fore, 8,000 yearling seals to fill up the number. They took them in 
spite of the regulations ordered May 14, 1896, by Secretary Carlisle 
prohibiting that work. 

If Jordan and his associates had measured and weighed those skins 
as taken, they would have made a record (which they desired to con- 
ceal, and did then conceal), very plain, and self-evident of this illegal 
slaughter by these lessees. 

That is the reason why the authentic and official tables of 1873-74, 
which show the size and weight of yearling seals and their skins, were 
not alluded to or questioned by Dr. Jordan. He found them accu- 
rate, and beyond his power to question. He then ignored the whole 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 45 

subject in his labored, elaborated final report of 1898. (Fur Seal 
Investigations, pts. 1, 2, 3, 4, 1898.) 

But when this final report was prepared, Dr. Lucas was obliged to 
present at least the suggestion of a table which should show the size 
of the fur seal as it grows from birth to full maturity. (See p. 7, 
pt. 3, Fur Seal Investigations, 1898.) 

Instead of taking up a dozen or twenty examples of a yearling, he 
takes but one; he measures it, and it conforms exactly to the average 
which Elliott has published nearly 26 years earlier, it so happens. 

But when he takes a single 2 year old, he makes it to be only 
42 inches long, instead of that average of 45 inches which Elliott 
gets from the measurements of 30 specimens. (See Elliott's Mono. 
Seal Islands, p. 46, 1873-74.) 

On the other hand, Dr. Lucas's associate on this Indian commis- 
sion at the same time (1896), George A. Clark, measures also a single 
2 year-old, and publishes its length as 48 inches. (See p. 510, pt. 2, 
1898, Fur Seal Investigations.) 

That difference naturally exists between a "short" or small 2- 
year-old and a "long" or large specimen of the same age. Lucas 
measures one and Clark the other. But Elliott, in 1872-73, taking 
note of those extremes, gathered up 30 specimens and took the 
average length, and publishes it as 45 inches. 

Elliott found that large yearlings were 41 inches long and small 
ones only 29 to 30. He took an average of 20 or 30 specimens and 
placed the correct figure of 38 inches for a yearling's length in his 
table of 1873. 

In the same mistaken manner Lucas took the measurements of 
but a single 3-year-old seal's body. He made it 49 inches long. 
It was a "short" or small specimen. But Clark, on the other hand, 
gets a "long" or large 3-year-old, and he makes it 54 inches long. 
Elliott, however, took an average of 20 or 30 specimens, and he finds 
the real average size to be 52 inches in length, which makes a stable 
conclusion for a 3-year-old. 

Lucas and Clark fail in their work of getting result of sense or 
value by not going out into the field and getting the measurements 
of 30 or 40 specimens of these 1, 2, 3, and 4 year-old seals' bodies. 
Elliott made no such blunder which both Lucas and Clark admit 
they have done in the following statements: 

I agree with Mr. Lucas on looking at these bachelors that it is necessary to readjust 
our ideas * * * what we have called "4-year-olds" are probably "5-year- 
olds."— G. A. Clark, p. 436, pt. 2. 

I see that my tendency has been to underestimate the age of the smaller seals * * * 
(F. A. Lucas, p. 441, pt. 2.) 

THE INITIAL FRAUD ON THE SEAL ISLANDS, AS PERPETRATED BY THE 
LESSEES AND OTHERS IN 1890-91. 

There is an official record of the killing of seals on St. Pauls 
Island by which the lessees were enabled illegally to take 3,856 skins 
in violation of the orders of the President of the United States — so 
enabled by the subornation of the Government agents in charge of 
the Seal Islands. The limit of 6,000 skins was posted on St. Pauls 
Island June 10, 1891, and 1,500 skins on St. George was posted June 
13, 1891. (Rept. Agts. H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce, pp. 128-132, 
Aug. 31, 1913.) 



46 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

When the limit of 6,000 skins for the entire season of 1891, on St. 
Paul was posted June 10, 1891, just 810 skins had been taken, and by 
June 18, 1891, at the close of the killing on the reef that day, 6,622 
skins had been taken, or an excess then of 622 skins for the whole 
season. 

The killing, however, in spite of this peremptory order of the 
President prohibiting it after 6,000 seals had been taken, was con- 
tinued in open defiance of that order by the lessees up to August 10, 
1891, when they had secured 3,856 skins above the lawful limit on 
St. Paul and 961 skins above their lawful limit on St. George 
Island. Then they resumed this unlawful excess killing on November 
2, 1891, and continued it to December 5, 1891, taking 800 skins in 
addition to the exceess above stated. 

This record of that unlawful killing and criminal trespass declares 
that these lessees, in collusion with the Government agents in charge, 
W. H. Williams and Joseph Stanley-Brown, took 4,817 prime seal- 
skins during the season of 1891 in open flagrant violation of the law 
and their instructions. 

The motive for that particular criminal trespass was to profit by the 
sale of those excess skins at $60 per skin, or $289,020, which was a net 
guilty profit realized by said lessees. 

The British commissioners, when they landed July 29, 1891, on 
St. Pauls Island and found the lessees busy killing seals in violation 
of the proclamation of President Harrison and the agreement of 
June 14 with the Government of Great Britain, put a stop to it, and 
refused to be satisfied with the false denial of it by Charles Foster's 
men, Brown and Williams. They dispatched a note to Lord Salis- 
bury covering the same, which was speedily made public, and caused 
infinite humiliation to the American case in the controversy. 

These British commissioners at first determined to return in 1892 
and get the proof of the fact that this killing was done in violation 
of the law. This hint so disturbed the official tools of the lessees in 
the Treasury Department that the following "directions'' were given 
to Chief Special Agent Williams by Charles Foster. The object of 
writing these "directions" was to enable Williams to do all he could 
to prevent any light being thrown on the real order of killing as it 
was done. (See entry as below, on p. 455 of the official journal, 
Government agent's office, St. Paul Island, under date of " May 27, 

1892.") 

United States Treasury Department, 

Washington, D. C, May 2, 1892. 
Maj. W. H. Williams, 

United States Treasury Agent. 
Sir: Your attention is called to the unfortunate representations made to Lord 
Salisbury last year by the British commissioners. 

Their statements concerning the alleged violation of the modus vivendi in the 
matter of seal killing were based upon their misinterpretation of the terms of the 
modus and their misunderstanding of the facts. Especial effort should be made, 
therefore, to present with exceeding clearness any facts that you may deem necessary 
or proper to communicate to any British official visiting either island. All affidavits 
taken by such agents from the natives or other persons on the islands must be taken 
in the presence of a Government officer, and the foreign agents must conform to such 
rules of conduct concerning the rookeries as are required of citizens of the United 
States. 

Charles Foster, Secretary. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 47 

Williams refused to return to the islands. He knew that he had 
falsified the facts July 29, 1891, to these British agents, and that 
they would convict him of it if he attempted to deny it. So he 
asked Foster to transfer him to another post. He was at once trans- 
ferred to London and J. Stanley Brown put in his place. This man 
had no scruples in the matter and no responsibility "officially" in 
1891, since Williams was his chief at that time. 

RECAPITULATION OF THE FRAUD PERPETRATED BY THE LESSEES IN 
1891, ON THE SEAL ISLANDS, WITH THE COLLUSION OF THE UNITED 
STATES' AGENTS IN CHARGE OF THE SAME. 

May 3. The President vetoes and cancels permit for lessens to kill 
seals issued by Secretary Charles Foster, April 11, 1891. 

May 27. By order of the Secretary of Treasury from the President, 
lessees are allowed to take 7,500 tT food seals" during entire season of 
1891. 

June 13. To-day the order of May 27, limiting the killing on the 
Pribilof Islands to 7,500 for the entire season is posted and served on 
the lessees in St. Paul village, by the United States agent in charge. 
The catch on St. Paul is restricted to 6,000 seals, and the catch on 
St. George is restricted to 1,500. 

June 13. Three thousand seven hundred and thirty seals were taken 
by the close of this day, and left 2,270 seals only for the lessees to 
lawfully take during the rest of this year on St. Paul Island. 

June 15. Nine hundred and forty-one seals were taken by the close 
of this day on St. George Island, leaving only 559 seals for the lessees 
to lawfully take during the rest of this year on this island. 

June 18. Six thousand six hundred and fifty-one seals were taken 
at the -close of this day on St. Paul Island, and 651 seals had been 
taken to-day in violation of the President's order (duly posted here 
June 13 last), yet, in spite of that order, the killing was continued in 
violation of it, as follows: June 20, 119 seals; June 25, 215 seals; June 
29, 400 seals; July 8, 100 seals; July 13, 121 seals; July 15, 122 seals; 
July 21, 177 seals; July 27, 248 seals; August 3, 118 seals; August 5, 
407 seals; August 10, 100 seals; November 2, 31 seals; November 9, 
37 seals; November 14, 142 seals; November 19, 188 seals; November 
21, 2 seals; November 24, 133 seals; November 25, 102 seals; Novem- 
ber 29, 162 seals; December 5, 3 seals. 

Or a total of 9,579 seals taken, 3,579 of which were taken by the 
lessees in open flagrant violation of the law and order of the President 
of the United States (dated June 15), and posted in advance on the 
islands June 13, 1891. 

July 1. 1,548 seals were taken at the close of this day on St. George 
Island, being 48 seals in excess of the limit ordered by the President, 
duly posted here on June 15 last; yet in spite of that order, this 
killing of seals was continued in violation of it, as follows: July 3, 30 
seals; July 6, 119 seals; July 16, 54 seals; July 20, 54 seals; July 24, 
72 seals; July 25, 181 seals; August 1, 26 seals; August 6, 15 seals; 
August 13, 83 seals; August 17, 55 seals; September 24, 36 seals; 
October 23, 104 seals; October 28, 25 seals; November 23, 71 seals; 
November 23, 26 seals. 

Or a total of 2,461 seals taken, 960 of which were taken by the 
lessees in open flagrant violation of the law and order of the President 



48 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

of the United States (dated June 15), and posted in advance on the 
islands June 14, 1891. 

The above certified daily entry of killing, as made on the official 
journals of the agents of the Government in charge of the Seal Islands 
of Alaska, show that the lessees with the connivance and permission 
of the United States Government agents whom they suborned took 
12,040 seals, or 4,540 seals in excess of their right to do so, and in open 
flagrant violation of the law and, regulations. 

The daily killing records are published on page 203 of the (Report 
of Fur Seal Investigations, part 1, 1898) Treasury Document 2017, 
published by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, June, 1898. 
The record of the posting of the President's order restricting all kill- 
ing on the islands to 7,500 seals for the entire season of 1891, as given 
above, is found in Report of Special Agents, House Committee dn 
Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913, page 128. 

The motive for this criminal trespass by the lessees as above related 
was that those 4,540 illegally taken skins brought them an average of 
$60 per skin, or $272,400, which was net gain to them. They took 
nothing after the order of the President was posted except the very finest 
young 3 and 4- year old seals that hauled out, and they took every one of 
them that did haul out up to the close of this season of 1891 . 

It now becomes in order to show by an exhibit taken from the 
official records, the sworn testimony, and authentic letters, what 
relation — 

Charles Nagel, as Secretary of Commerce and Labor; 

Geo. M. Bowers, as United States Commissioner of Fisheries; 

David Starr Jordan, as chairman Advisory Fur Seal Board ; 

Walter I. Lembkey, as chief special agent in charge of seal islands ; 

Isaac Liebes, president N. A. C. Co., lessees, and his associate lessees; 

Jos. Stanley Brown, dual agent of the Government and lessees, 
had and have, to this unlawful and complete destruction of the 
fur-seal herd of Alaska. 

To do so, briefly, clearly, and faithfully as to truth of record, I 
have prepared the following statement, which I submit as Exhibit III; 
all citations of the records and sworn testimony have been carefully 
verified, and will stand as made. 



EXHIBIT III. 

A certified list of 120,000 yearling sealskins taken by the lessees 
of the Seal Islands of Alaska between 1896 and 1910, in open self-con- 
fessed violation of the law and the regulations governing their con- 
tract, said illegal work being done in combination with certain sworn 
agents of the Government whose duty was to prevent it. 

Said agents, instead, connived with said lessees and enabled this 
illegal and ruinous slaughter to be made annually from 1896 to 1910. 

And this illegal and ruinous slaughter and criminal trespass by the 
lessees 1 upon the fur-seal herd of Alaska was duly pointed out to 
Secretary Oscar Straus in detail December 19, 1906, again on May 18, 
1908, again on December 7, 1908, and repeated in detail to Secretary 
Charles Nagel April 26, 1909, again May 9, 1910, and again May 24, 
1910. All of said detailed specific charges and proof of this illegal 
and ruinous killing were ignored and evaded by said Straus and 
Nagel. 

ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTES WHICH GOVERN THE CONDUCT OF KILLING 
AND TAKING FUR SEALS ON THE PRIBILOF ISLANDS, BERING SEA, 
ALASKA, FROM 1869 TO 1913, INCLUSIVE. 

March 4, 1869. Public resolution declaring the Pribilof group of 
seal islands are a Government reservation. 

July 1, 1870. Act ordering a lease made for 20 years of the seal 
islands — 1870-1890. It places the entire control of the killing and 
taking of fur seals in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury, only 
fixing a maximum limit of 100,000 seals annually and prohibiting the 
killing of female seals and seals less than one year old. (See Hearing 
No. 10, pp. 462-463.) 

May 1, 1890. Lease of 1870-1890 expires; new lease for 20 years — 
1890-1910; no change in act of 1870 made which permits this renewal 
of said lease to highest bidder, and reserves complete control for the 
Secretary of the Treasury as to killing and taking seals. (See Hearing 
No. 10, pp. 466-467.) 

May 14, 1896. Secretary Carlisle orders "no yearling seals or seals 
having skins weighing less than 6 pounds " killed. Posted on the 
islands June 17, 1896. (See Report of Agents of House Committee 
on Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913, pp. 75, 76.) 

May 1, 1904. "Hitchcock rules" ordered to-day by Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, who does not know of the existence of the 
"Carlisle rules" of 1896, and which have been ignored by all officials 
and the lessees since the day they were posted in 1896. 

1 A conspiracy is a continuing offense, according to the United States Supreme Court. Two men who 
were the agents in bringing the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Co. within the power of the Sugar Trust, 
which kept the refinery idle for years, sought to escape punishment for their part in a conspiracy to re- 
strain trade and establish a monopoly by pleading the statute of limitations. That act would have run 
against the inception of the conspiracy, and the trial judge held that they could not be tried. But the 
Supreme Court holds, very rationally, that the statute does not protect them, for they continued their 
conspiracy in restraint of trade within the statutory period. — Philadelphia Record, December 14, 1910. 

21588—13 4 49 



50 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

These "Hitchcock rules" prohibit the taking of "any seals under 
2 years of age, and having skins weighing less than 5i pounds." 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 482, 483.) 

March 9, 1906. The "Metcalf rules/' ordered to-day, change the 
5J-pound minimum weight of the Hitchcock rules to 5 pounds; 
otherwise no change is made in the order of the same. (See Hearing 
No. 10, p. 483.) 

April 21, 1910. Act repeals leasing section of act of 1870; other- 
wise does not change the full control hitherto given the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor to govern by regulations the seal killing on the 
islands, etc. (See Hearing No. 10, pp. 480-481.) 

February 29, 1912. Chief Special Agent Lembkey, in charge of the 
seal islands, swears that the regulations of the department bind him 
not to kill seals "under 2 years of age" and that they are in effect, 
to wit: 

Mr. Madden. If they were killed it would be a violation of law. 

Mr. Lembkey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be in 
accordance with existing law. 

It should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of,any male 
seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, although regulations of the department do prohibit 
the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned to the 
islands from their second migration. 

Mr. Townsend. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor? 

Mr. Lembkey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir. (Hearing i\o. 9, p. 373.) 

A list of 128,000 yearling sealskins taken on the seal islands of Alaska 
oy the lessees thereof during the term of their lease from May 1, 1890, to 
May 1, 1910. 

One hundred and twenty thousand of these one hundred and 
twenty-eight thousand yearling seals have been taken in open, 
flagrant violation of the Carlisle rules of May 14, 1896, and the 
Hitchcock rules of May 1, 1904, which rules of the Treasury and 
Commerce and Labor Departments have the force of law. 

These 120,000 sealskins, itemized in Elliott's list, are the skins of 
"small pups" and "extra small pups," as listed in the sales at Lon- 
don, each and every one of which has been measured there and 
certified to the trade there as being less than 34 inches long, and, so 
certified, sold upon that certification as to its size and class as a 
"small pup" or "extra small pup." 

These measurements of the London sales classification are ad- 
mitted by the Bureau of Fisheries as being absolutely accurate. 

Under oath, the Bureau of Fisheries agent and man who has taken 
all the skins with the cooperation of the lessees on the Pritilof 
Islands since 1899 up to 1910 — this agent admitted that a 3^earling 
sealskin of his own identification and measurement as such was 36 j 
inches long. (See Hearing No. 9, pp. 442, 443. Apr. 13, 1912. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. of Com. and Labor.) 



FUE-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



51 



Investigation of Fur-Seal Industry of Alaska. 

Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, 

House of Representatives, 

Tuesday, July 11, 1911. 

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) 
presiding. 

The Chairman. I have some questions to ask. A great deal has been said before 
the committee about the illegal killing of seals on these islands, and I have therefore 
requested Prof. Elliott to make out a statement of what he considers a proper estimate 
of such illegal killing in the last 20 years of the lease. I told him to make the estimate 
year by year, and to submit it to the committee, and he has 1 his statement here, I 
will ask you, Prof. Elliott, to take it up and discuss it with the committee, and I do 
this upon the theory that if the lessees were guilty of any illegal killing of seals, or 
were guilty of bringing this herd to partial destruction, that, under the securities that 
are lodged with the Government, as I understand it, they ought to make good what- 
ever they did in the way of injury to the Government by any violation of the law, 
administration orders, or the provision s„of the lease. I want the witness to state as 
an expert how many such killings of seals there may have been, and what he con- 
siders has been the injury done to the Government during the last 20 years. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, I will read the statement in detail: 

MEMORANDUM, FOR HON. JOHN H. ROTHERMEL, IN RE SEAL SKINS TAKEN BY LESSEES 

IN VIOLATION OF LAW. 

Minimum numbers of yearling seals taken in violation of law by the North American 
Commercial Co., or lessees of the seal islands of Alaska. Figures taken from the sales 
catalogues of Messrs. C. M. Lampson's Sons, London, during period of lease held by 
the N. A. C. Co. aforesaid. 





Total 
skins 
taken. 


Year- 
lings. 




Total 

skins 
taken. 


Year- 
lings. 


1890 


20,310 
13,473 
7,554 
7,492 
16, 030 
15,002 
30,004 
20, 762 
18,032 
16,804 
22,473 


3,823 
i 1,200 

0) 

C 1 ) 

1,400 
2,200 ; 

13,000 i 
8,000 
4,000 
3,500 
9,500 


1901 


22,672 
22,304 

19,374 
13,128 
14,368 
14,478 
14,888 
14,965 
14,350 


13, 000 
14, 500 


1891 


1902 


1892 


1903 


15,600 


1893 


1904 


6,500 


1894 . 


1905 


6,918 
6,837 


1895 


1906 


1896 


1907. . . 


7,000 
6,500 


1S97 


190S 


1898 


1909... 


7,000 


1899 


Total 




1900 2 


354,413 


128, 478 







1 Modus vivendi. 2 Standard lowered this year for first time to "5-pound skins," or "yearlings. 



July 10, 1911. 



Henry W. Elliott. 



Mr. Cable. May I ask one question? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 

Mr. Cable. Is it now against the law,- or has it ever been against the law, to take a 
seal 1 year old? May I ask what is the understanding of the committee on that ques- 
tion? I want to get straight on it myself. Has it not always been perfectly legal to 
take seals a year old or more than a year old? 

Mr. Elliott. That is absolutely true. These seals are taken in June and July, 
but until the 1st of August following no one can tell what is a yearling seal. 

Mr. Cable. Then, is it your contention that this List you have read is based on 
seals that are killed under 1 year of age? 

Mr. Elliott. Ihey must be under 1 year old. If you kill them in June or July, 
the benefit of the doubt belongs to them. If you kill a yearling seal on the 9th day 
of July, how do you know that it was born on the 9th day of July a year ago? 

Mr. Cable. I am not a seal expert. 

Mr. Elliott. You nor no other man could determine that. 



52 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Cable. Do you claim that this list you have read is based upon seals that are 
under 1 year old? 

Mr. Elliott. Under 2 years old. 

Mr. Cable. Is there anything illegal in killing the year-old seals? 

Mr. Elliott. Not if you know it is a year old. 

Mr. Cable. What do you call a yearling seal? 

Mr. Elliott. A yearling seal is a yearling until it is 2 years old. 

The Chairman. What is a yearling seal? 

Mr. Elliott. A yearling seal is one not under 1 year of age nor over 2 years of age. 
That is a yearling. You cannot get away from that definition. A yearling is a year- 
ling until it is 2 years old. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. What is your understanding as to the law on the subject? 

Mr. Elliott. The law does not allow the killing of a seal under 12 months of age. 

Mr. Townsend. Under 2 years of age, according to that ruling of 1904? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; I put that in the department rules in 1904 to stop those 
butchers. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then, it is agreed on all sides that it is legal to kill anything 
over 12 months old? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; I admit that, but you must prove it. 

That this killing of seals under 2 years of age was in violation 
of law and the regulations is admitted under oath by the Bureau of 
Fisheries agent, W. I. Lembkey, who has killed all the seals under 
the instructions of the Treasury, Commerce and Labor Departments, 
and Bureau of Fisheries since 1899 to date of July 7, 1913, thus: 

On page 372, Hearing No. 9, he testified as follows: 

"Mr. McGillicuddy. What do you- call a yearling seal? Do you mean a seal that 
is 12 montl s old and no more? 

"Mr. Lembkey. A yearling seal, in the island nomenclature, is a seal which has 
returned to the islands from its first migration. 

"Mr. McGillicuddy. It may be more than 12 months old then? 

"Mr. Lembkey. It may be more; it may be a trifle less. 

"Mr. McGillicuddy. How much more than 12 months could it be? 

"Mr. Lembkey. It could not be but a little more, because all these seals are born 
during a period of 3 weeks, generally speaking, from the 25th of June to the 15th of 
July. Now, they return to the islands in a mass about the 25th of July. 

******* 

"Mr. Madden. If they were killed, it would be a violation of law? 

"Mr. Lembkey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be 
in accordance with existing law. 

"It should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of any 
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, although regulations of the department do 
prohibit the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned 
to the islands from their second migration. 

"Mr. Townsend. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir." 

He testified as follows, on page 442, Hearing No. 9: 

"Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its 
nose to the tip of its tail? 

"Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; not offhand. 

"Mr. Elliott. You never measured one? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Oh, yes; I have measured one. 

"Mr. Elliott. Have you no record of it? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I have a record of it here. 

"Mr. Elliott. What is its length? 

"Mr. Lembkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be, from the 
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 39£ inches in one instance and 39^- in another 
instance 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

"Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three." 

******* 

Also on page 443 : 

"Mr. Elliott. How much can you say is left on a yearling after you have taken 
the skin off? 

"The Chairman. How much skin is left after you have taken it off? 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 53 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain 
amount is left on. 

"Mr. Lembkey. I stated about 3 inches. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long. 

"Mr. Lembkey. No; if it was 3(H inches long, it would leave it 36£ inches. That 
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 39i inches 
long. Three inches off that would leave 36£ inches." 

On the 13th of April, 1912, while Special Agent Lembkey was 
testifying, the following admission was made by him that he knew 
that the London measurements of the skins taken by him on the 
seal islands of Alaska, were the reliable and indisputable record of 
their sizes, and that the weights of the same were not, to wit: 

Mr. Lembkey. You might make a yearling skin weigh 9 pounds by the adding of 
blubber, yet when it got to London it would be only so long and so wide. 

Mr. Elliott. That is it. 

Mr. Lembkey. And of course it would develop in the classification when the skins 
would be exposed for sale. 

(Hearing No. 9, p. 447, Apr. 13, 1912.) 

The Chairman. What is the question to this witness? 

Mr. Elliott. I asked if he does not know that the sizes are established by meas- 
urements? 

The Chairman. Just answer that question. Do you know it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have been so informed. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you doubt it? 

Mr. Lembkey. Oh, no. 

(Hearing No. 9, p. 441, Apr. 13, 1912; Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

The fact that Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
had full prior knowledge of the falsifying of these skin weights into 
the books of the department as the weights of 2-year-old male seals 
when in truth they were not, is fully set forth in the following records 
of his office, to wit, and also that he was confronted with the indis- 
putable proof of the fraud by the lessees in giving their lease, viz; 

17 Grace Avenue, Lake wood, Ohio, 

December 19, 1906. 
Hon. Oscar Straus, 

Secretary Department Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: In the report of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor recently trans- 
mitted by the President to Congress, a discussion of the condition of the fur-seal 
herd of Alaska appears, and reference is made to the report of E. W. Sims, who made 
an investigation into the status of this herd last summer. 

The Secretary repeats the words of Mr. Sims, and says that the fur-seal herd is 
rapidly disappearing as the result of pelagic sealing; he also adds that in his judgment 
the "destructive eff< cl of this method of taking seals has not been fully realized" — 
i. e., by anyone until this season. 

The Secretary is right in saying that this herd is "rapidly disappearing," but is 
entirely wrong in saying that the destructive effect of pelagic sealing has not been 
fully realized; he does not seem to know that on the strength of my showing of the 
full effect of pelagic sealing under existing law and regulations which 1 gave to the 
Ways and Means * iommittee of the Eous ■ December 21, 1894, that that committee and 
the House took action February 22, 1895, to suppress and put the pelagic hunter out 
of business; but this wise, sensible, ami merciful action of the House was defeated 
in the Senate by sworn agents of the Government, who denied this dang?r and injury 
incident to pelagic sealing, claiming that the rules of the Bering Sea tribunal were 
sufficient to avert it. 

Again I brought this danger of pelagic sealing forward in 1898, after the Jordan- 
Thompson agreement of November 16, 1897, had utterly denied it. Again my charges 
of this real danger were officially denied by sworn agents of the United States Gov- 
ernment in the service of the Treasury Department ?nd indorsed by the Secretary 
of that department in a letter dated February 7, 1902, addressed to the chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee of the House. 

I answered this erroneous official statement of Secretary Shaw by making an exhibit 
for the committee which, declared that bv the end of the season of 1907 the male 



54 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

breeding life on the Pribilof Islands would be extinct. (See Rept. Ways and Means 
Com., 2303; 57th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 4, 5.) 

The committee overruled the Secretary of the Treasury and agreed with me; it 
reported and passed a House bill, February 2, 1903, which would have put an end 
to the inhuman and indecent business of the pelagic hunter had it not been again 
defeated in the Senate by a false statement made to the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee by Senator Fairbanks, February 17, 1903, who assured his colleagues that 
an agreement to a satisfactory settlement had been reached in the Anglo-American 
Joint High Commission, and that that commission would publish it soon after it 
reconvened; that that reconvention would take place soon after the 4th of March, 
1903; hence the House JdiII was not necessary. 

I knew that this statement of Senator Fairbanks was without warrant and said so to 
his colleagues in the Senate at the time, but the sine die adjournment on March 4 
prevented action, and so this second attempt to suppress the pelagic hunter failed. 
And it failed not from any want of understanding of the destructive effect of pelagic 
sealing, as the Secretary of Commerce and Labor says existed until the Sims report 
of 1906 had been made. Mr. Metcalf was himself a member of the Ways and Means 
Committee in 1902, when I gave that body the full understanding of this work of 
pelagic sealing, and he was also a member when I again reenforced my argument of 
1902 with figures and facts, March 9-10, 1904. 

He also heard my indictment of the excessive land killing by the lessees before this 
committee in 1904; he heard it denied by the lessees, and only partly agreed to by 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, solely on the strength of my showing March 
9-10, 1904, did the department pledge to the committee the annual reservation of 
2,000 choice young male seals from slaughter by the lessees on the Pribilof Islands. 

On the 26th of October, 1905, the agent of the department in charge of the seal 
islands of Alaska, in an official report admits that my charge of injury through 
excessive land killing by the lessees is correct. (See p. 81, S. Doc. No. 98, 59th 
Cong., 1st sess.) 

On page 33 of Secretary Metcalf 's report for 1906 he tells us that the lessees during 
the season of 1906 "took 14,643 fur-seal skins, including 281 skins taken during the 
previous season." Then, in this same paragraph, and immediately following, he says 
that only 10,942 seals were killed on St. Paul Island and 1,685 seals were killed on 
St. George Island during the season of 1906. This analysis which he makes of his 
own figures declares the fact that 2,016 skins, and not "281 skins," came over into 
the catch of 1906 from 1905. 

The significance of this you will at once observe when you understand that these 
2,016 skins were the "food seals," which were killed in October and November, 1905, 
and still more, they were the 2,000 choice young male seals ordered spared and sheared 
(not branded) in June and early July, 1905, this sheared mark haidng entirely disap- 
peared by the middle or end of September, since every fur seal by the end of Septem- 
ber annually completely renews it own hair — sheds and grows it anew in August and 
September. 

That this is not even faintly understood by the Secretary is plain, for in the next 
paragraph he proceeds to tell us that "in addition to the branded seals reserved for 
breeding purposes, 4,724 small and 1,944 large seals were dismissed from the drives 
as being ineligible for killing under the department's regulations." 

More misinformation with regard to the subject can not be put into fewer words. 
Witness the following: 

I. These seals were not branded ; they were sheared instead, in June and early July. 
Then by the end of September they completely lose this mark of reservation, and 
each and every one of them that hauls out on the Pribilof Islands during October- 
November is killed as a "food" seal, and the lessees get the skins, which are carried 
over into the catch for the next season. (See the official proof of this on pp. 8, 64, 65, 
and 86 of S. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., 1st sess.) 

II. These "4,774 small" seals do not represent in fact more than 800 or 1,000 such 
seals. Most of these seals have been recounted over and over again as they were 
i - edriven and then dismissed during the season. Some of them have reappeared in 
this fictitious total six or seven times. 

III. These "1,944 large seals" were the sheared and spared seals of 1906 so marked 
in June and early July. Last October and November they were killed as they hauled 
out, as "food " seals, and their skins will appear in the quota or catch of the lessees for 
1907, if these men are permitted to kill next season. 

With regard to the report of Mr. Sims, I shall not dwell upon the many obvious and 
plain errors of statement and conclusion which appear in it. I do not do so because 
he admits that his experience in the premises is limited to a short week on the seal 
islands during the summer of 1906. No man, it matters not how great his inherent 
ability, can master this question and intelligently discuss it with so little experience. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 55 

With the single exception of correctly speaking of this immediate danger of com- 
plete extinction of the fur-seal herd of Alaska, under existing conditions. Mr. Sims is 
completely at sea and in profound error over everything that ho hrings into conclusion 
and recommends in his report of August 31, 1906. 
Very sincerely, your friend and servant, 

Henry W. Elliott. 



Department of Commerce and Labor. 

Office of the Secretary. 

Washington, January 2, 1907. 
Mr. H. W. Elliott, 

No. 17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th ultimo, comment- 
ing upon that portion of the Secretary's last annual report which refers to the Alaskan 
fur-seal service, and to thank you for the information therein contained. 
Respectfully, 

Lawrence 0. Murray, 

Assistant Secretary. 



No. 17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. 

May 18, 1908. 
Hon. Oscar Straus. 

Secretary Commerce and Labor. Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: On the 19th of Decemher, 190G, T addressed to you a letter in which I 
pointed out to you certain pronounced errors of statement made in an official report 
to you by one E. W. Sims on the condition of the fur-seal herd of Alaska. That I did 
so was fairly imperative on my part, since these errors of statement and recommenda- 
tion, which this inexperienced and wholly untrained agent made, were entirely 
subversive of the trufh, and most injurious for those public interests at stake, if acted 
favorably upon by you." 

On the 2d of January, 1907, I received an official acknowledgment of the receipt of 
that letter aforesaid, with the simple "thank you for the information contained." 
That acknowledgment was enough; it made no suggestion of an error in any statement 
on my part. There was none, and I knew it. when I addressed you. 

My chief protest in that letter was against the grave misstatement by Mr. Sims, who 
said that all of those seals ordered spared by the Hitchcock rides were duly " branded," 
and so exempted from slaughter ever afterwards by the lessees; that this "branding" 
was faithfully done, and those spared seals thus permitted to live, grow up into breed- 
ing bulls for the rookeries; all this officially and explicitly reported to you, when in 
fact it was not true. 

Therefore I described to you the manner in which these seals were not branded — not 
one of them — and how they were sheared instead. How this sheared mark was entirely 
lost a few weeks later when the seal went into its natural annual molt and renewed all 
of its body hair. So that those sheared seals thus "branded " in June and July and 
spared then, when they hauled out again in October and November following were 
without any mark of exemption and were killed then by the lessees as "food" seals; 
that in this manner those land butchers were actually nullifying the regulations of 
the department, which Mr. Sims erroneously declared the faithful observance of 
to you. 

What has been the result of this truthful and clear statement on my part to you 
made December 19, 1906? What has been done with regard to the conduct of affairs 
on the islands during the season following? 

1 have the official answer of the agents — your agents — now T in my hands. It is 
printed as Senate Document No. 376, Sixtieth Congress, first session. Since I have 
myself officially reported to my Government on this life, and as I have so reported 
up to date that no man or official following me or prior to my work has thus far been 
able to successfully impeach the entire truth and sense of my published official rec- 
ords in 1881 and in L890 (Monograph Seal Islands of Alaska. Government Printing 
Office, 1881), and (H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 2d sess.), I am constrained to review 
these reports of your agents for the seasons of 1906-7, inclusive. That review is here- 
with inclosed for your information and use. If I have made an error in it and it is 
publicly presented to me, I will be most happy to acknowledge it; but I desire to 
say that I do not believe it can be questioned seriously by any authority. I challenge 
the correction confidently. 



56 FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

Your agent, Mr. Lembkey, has no warrant or even the shadow of authority to ignore 
or dispute that table of skin weights which I officially published on page 81, Mono- 
graph Seal Islands of Alaska in 1881. He can not and will not be permitted to set 
aside in this idle manner, as he does on page 84, Senate Document No. 376, that 
long-established and standard agreement of all the United States Treasury agents, 
the agents of the lessees, and myself, upon these skin weights, from 1872 up to 1881; 
and, still more, his attempt to deny that record so officially published is in turn flatly 
denied by the life and growth of the fur seal itself to-day. That life and growth has 
not changed one hair's breadth from its order when I, first of all men, accurately 
recorded it in my published work — officially recorded it in 1872-90, inclusive. 

I desire to say that it is with great reluctance that I take up this matter; but I can 
not let any officialism of to-day reflect ever so little upon my own of yesterday and 
which I shall defend against all ignorant or venal criticism, now and in the future, 
just as successfully as I have done so in the past. I refer especially to the "scientific " 
vagaries of Merriam and Jordan in 1891 and 1896-7 and the venal and calumnious 
work of John W. Foster before the Bering Sea Tribunal in 1893. 

In the light of this letter, herewith inclosed, and which can not be truthfully 
clouded by any man, it must be clear to you that the lessees can not be permitted by 
you to safely kill a seal next summer on the Pribilof Islands; but your agents can be 
directed to permit the natives to kill some 2,500 or 3,000 small male seals for food 
without any risk to mention of doing injury to the public interests concerned. 
I am, very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

Henry W. Elliott. 

The back-room officials managed to keep Mr. Straus ven^ quiet — so 
quiet that Elliott jogged him up a few months later, thus: 

1232 Fourteenth Street, NW., 

Washington, D. C, December 7, 1908. 
Hon. Oscar Straus, 

Secretary Commerce and Labor. 

Dear Sir: On the 18th of May last I addressed a letter to y*>u, in which I called 
your attention to the salient errors of statement made to you in the 1906-7 reports 
of your seal-island agent, as printed by order of the Secretary. (S. Doc. No. 376, 60th 
Cong., 1st sess.) 

In this letter aforesaid I inclosed a published review of that work of your agent. 
(Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio, May 17, 1908.) I charged the lessees in this article 
(as inclosed) with the violation of their contract, since in taking their catch for 1907 
they had killed yearling seals, and had done so because they were obliged to kill them 
or fail to get the 15,000 skins you allowed them to get under the terms of the Hitchcock 
rules . To get them they have openly violated those regulations of the department, and 
the inclosed evidence of their own sales agent in London convicts them of that 
charge — indisputably convicts them. 

Even if we were to admit for sake of argument on this score that Special Agent 
Lembkey 's classification of skin weights is correct, as published on page 84, Senate 
Document No. 376, above cited, even then this London classification declares that at 
least 6,000 yearlings were killed in the total catch of last season (1908). They must 
take these yearlings or have nothing — there is nothing left. That is the fact, and these 
men are draining the very dregs of that life up thereto get the quota you allow them to 
have. 

Very sincerely, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 

Mr. Straus however, growing embarrassed over this plain and 
direct offer of proof of fraud in the Bureau of Fisheries, put up the 
following evasion of his responsibility in the premises ; he issued an 
executive order transferring the whole business into the hands of 
the Hon. Geo. M. Bowers, as the directly responsible agent of the 
Government, to wit: 

December 28, 1908. 
To the Commissioner of Fisheries, the agents charged with the management of the seal 

fisheries in Alaska, and others concerned: 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, sections 1973 and 161, and by the organic act creating this department, ap- 
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the 
head of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the 
general management, supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 57 

administration of the laws relating to the Eur-seal fisheries of Alaska; that the agents 
charged with the management of the seal fisheries of Alaska, together with such 
other persons in the employ of the department as may hereafter be engaged in the 
execution of the said laws, shall he subject to the immediate jurisdiction and control 
of the Commissioner of Fisheries, and shall, in addition to the duties required of 
them by law, perform such other duties as he may, with the approval of the Secre- 
tary of Commerce and Labor, prescribe; that the appropriations for "Salaries, agents 
at seal fisheries in Alaska." 1998 and 1909, "Salaries and traveling expenses of agents 
at seal fisheries in Alaska," 1908 and 1909. and "Supplies for native inhabitants, 
Alaska." 1908 and 1909, shall be expended under the immediate direction of the 
Commissioner of Fisheries, subject to the supervision of the Secretary; and that 
all records, papers, files, printed documents and other property in the department 
appertaining to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska shall be transferred from their present 
custody to the custody of the Bureau of Fisheries. 

Oscae S. Straus. Secretary. 

This relieved Oscar Straus from answering Elliott directly, and 
threw it upon his successor, Charles Nagel, who appears on the scene 
March 4, 1909. 

In the meantime Mr. Bowers, finding that the scent was growing 
pretty strong out of this fraud in killing seals, persuaded Secretary 
Straus to appoint a " high scientific advisory board" on fur-seal 
service, so that troublesome questions of citizens like Elliott could 
be "authoritatively" answered. Accordingly, on January 15, 1909, 
he appointed "Dr. David Starr Jordan (chairman), Dr. Leonhard 
Stejneger, Di\ C. Hart Merriam, Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Mr. Frederic 
A. Lucas, and Mr. Charles H. Townsend" as "the advisory board, 
fui--seal service." All the men named promptly accepted this appoint- 
ment, and the board was formally commissioned February 6, 1909. 
(See Appendix A, pp. 811-813, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept, 
C. & L.) 

Mr. Elliott taking due notice of this shift , and waiting patiently 
until the successor of Secretary Straus had been in office long enough 
to get his hearings, addressed the Hon. Charles Nagel a letter covering 
specifically the subject of fraud on the part of the lessees, as follows: 

Lakewood, Ohio, April 26, 1909. 
Hon. Chas. R. Nagel, 

Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: On the 8th of May, 1908, I addressed a letter to your immediate prede- 
cessor, inclosing a copy of a recent publication of facts over my own signature. In 
this letter I urged him to shut down that work of the lessees on the seal islands of 
Alaska, since it was being done in open and self-confessed violation of the regulations 
of the Government. The published statements, which I took the trouble to arrange 
and present in this responsible manner to him, demanded that action from him. But 
he took none. And still more, he did not even acknowledge the receipt of my letter 
aforesaid, which gave him this information, lacking on his part in the premises. 

However, I know that such silence is the common refuge of that particular official- 
ism which is both unable and unwilling to dispute a statement of fact running counter 
to its order. But I simply did my duty in the premises, as a good citizen should do. 

Now, it is both my duty and my pleasure to renew this request and address it to 
you, and to inclose copies of the publications as sent to Mr. Straus last May. Also, 
in this connection, I desire to add that on December, 7 1908, I again submitted addi- 
tional figures and facts to Mr. Straus, in a letter of that date, which declared that the 
lessees had again violated the specific terms of their contract during the season of 
1908 by killing thousands of seals specifically prohibited from such killing by the 
express order of the Hitchcock rules. To this letter and its indisputable serious 
charge no acknowledgment has been made; no attempt to deny its statements has 
been even hinted at. The reason for that silence is good. The truth of my charge 
has been self-confessed by the lessees in London. 

I therefore, on the strength of those figures and facts which I have submitted to 
the department, as above cited (May 18 and Dec. 7, 1908), respectfully renew 
my request that this work of the lessees be wholly suspended, and at once. I do so 



58 FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

in the clear light of the inclosed statements of fact. I also recommend that the law 
which bonds and binds this corporation leasing the seal islands of Alaska be enforced 
before it shall be too late to reach the lessees with those fines and penalties ordered 
by it for the public good. 

I am, very respectfully, your friend and servant, 

Henry W. Elliott. 



Department op Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, April 29, 1909. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

Lakewood, Ohio. 
Sir: This bureau has received, by reference from the department, your letter of the 
26th instant, in which you invite attention to the condition of the seal herd on the 
Pribilof Islands, and inclosed clippings on the same subject from the Cleveland 
Plain Dealer, together with your comments thereon. Your communication, with its 
inclosures, has been placed on file. 

Very respectfully, Geo. M. Bowers, 

Commissioner. 

These specific charges thus made by Mi'. Elliott stirred Secretary 
Nagel to appoint a special " expert investigator/' one Geo. A. Clark, 
who was urged for this work by Dr. David Starr Jordan. This 
appointment of Clark was made on May 7, 1909 (see pp. 819-820, 
Appendix A, H. Com. on Exp. Dep. Com. & Labor). Clark went to 
the Pribilof Islands; made his report September 30, 1909. 

In this report (on pp. 850, 851, Appendix A) he confirms the truth 
of Elliott's charges in re killing yearlings, as follows: 

The yearlings of both sexes for the season must number about 12,000 each. 

This question of the proportion of the sexes surviving to killable and breeding age 
is a fundamental one. It could be settled in a very few seasons by such regulation of 
killing for the quota as would limit it to animals of '3 years of age and over, leaving 
the 2-year-olds untouched. The quota would then fall where it belongs, on the 
3-year-olds, and give a close approximation of the survivals among the young males, 
which in turn could be applied to the young females. This was the method used in 
1896-97, when a minimum of 6 pounds in weight of skins prevailed. During the 
present season and for some seasons past a minimum of 5 pounds has been in force, 
the skins taken ranging in weight all the way from 4 to 14J pounds, bringing all 
classes of animals from yearlings to 4-year-olds into the quota/ 

The result of this manner of killing is that we have no clear idea from the quota of 
the number of younger animals belonging to the herd. From the irregularity of the 
movements of the yearlings of both sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can not be 
counted or otherwise accurately estimated on the rookeries. 

With this proof of the truth of Elliott's charges in his hands, Mr. 
Secretary Nagel actually, on May 9, 1910, again renews the same 
killing orders of 1909, and again sends this guilty agent, Lembkey, 
up to kill 13,000 seals during June and July, 1910. 

Lembkey kills 12,920 seals in 1910, and then when put under oath, 
April 13, 1912, before the House Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, he admits that 7,733 of them 
are the skins of yearling seals, taken by him in open, flagrant violation 
of the law and regulations which he was compelled to quote and 
confess that he had full knowledge of at the time he was busy in this 
malfeasance! (See pp. 372, 429, 434, 441, 442, 443, 446, 447, Hear- 
ing No. 9, Feb. 29, April 13, 1912, House Committee on Expendi- 
tures in the Department of Commerce and Labor.) 

There is nothing ambiguous or indefinite in Mr. Elliott's letter of 
April 26, 1909, above quoted. Mr. Nagel was a lawyer of long- 
established practice and fully grasped the sense and point of Elliott's 
indictment, but he made no reply. Thinking it possible, however, 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 59 

that he had not been specific enough, and to put Mr. Nagel beyond 
doubt as to his meaning, Elliott again addressed Nagel as follows: 

Lakewood, Ohio, May 9, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary Commerce and Labor. 
Dear Sir: The reason why a new and competent audit of the seal-island books must 
be made in your department, and why it is demanded imperatively for the public good, 
is as follows, briefly stated: 

I. The law has been openly violated on the killing grounds of the islands, and the 
terms of the lease ignored by the lessees thereof at frequent intervals, and repeatedly, 
from July 17, 1S90, up to the close of the season of 1909. This violation of the law 
and the contract has been chiefly by the act of killing female and yearling male seals; 
said killings have not been in negligible numbers, but have run up into the tens of 
thousands of female and yearling male seals. 

II. This illegal and improper killing has been ordered by the Lessees, and falsely 
certified into your department as the taking of male seals according to law and the 
rules of your department. 

III. The full and complete proof of this illegal killing as specified above exists on 
the islands and in the records of the sales of those skins. Any competent and honest 
auditor of those records will lay them open and so disclose the truth of those charges 
as made in Items I and II. 

Very truly, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 

Giving Mr. Nagel full time to answer and knowing well why he 
did not answer, Elliott, on May 24, 1910, closed this record made as 
above, of timely, courteous warning to high officials of fraud practiced 
in their names on the seal islands, by sending the following square 
charge of the same to Charles Nagel, Secretary, to wit : 

Lakewood, Ohio. May 24, 1910. 

Hon. Chas. Nagel, 

Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: As a good citizen and being possessed of abundant knowledge, based 
upon indisputable fact. I addressed a letter dated December 18. 1906. to your imme- 
diate predecessor, Hon. Oscar Straus. In this letter to him I specified certain grave 
and inexcusable errors of official reports made to him by his subordinates and cer- 
tain specific acts of official malfeasance by the same, in re conduct of the public 
business on the seal islands of Alaska. 

On the 2d of January, 1907, I received a single acknowledgment of the receipt to 
this letter, above cited, with "thanks for the information contained " ; but taking 
notice of the fact that in spite of the indisputable truth of my charges and propriety 
of prompt reform to be made by him in the premises, Mr. Straus had made no move 
to do so, again I addressed a cautious letter May 18, 1907, to him, in which I renewed 
those charges and request for reform. To this letter I have never received even that 
perfunctory acknowledgment which was the entire return for my first one. 

Of comse I know why it was not answered — that subordinate officialism was guilty 
as indicted. It pigeonholed my letters; yet I had charity for Mr. Straus. I knew 
how hard it is for one in his position to get at the truth, so I quietly gathered an addi- 
tional statement of fact bearing on this guilty officialism aforesaid, and again on Decem- 
ber 7, 1908, I addressed a letter, courteously but flrmlj renewing my charges and 
request that he put an end to this malfeasance specified. 

Did I receive an answer? No. Why? Because that guilty officialism again silently 
pigeonholed my letter, since it convicted and dismissed certain officers if acted upon. 

Mr. Straus went out of office March 1, 1909. You succeeded. Knowing that you 
could not have any definite knowledge of this fur-seal business under your direction, 
except as you gathered it from this same guilty officialism aforesaid, I addressed you 
in turn a letter dated April 26, 1909, exposing that malfeasance under your hand. On 
the 29th following your perfunctory acknowledgment of its receipt came to me. 

But to this day no attempt has been made since by you to answer its grave, explicit, 
and indisputable charges of official malfeasance on the part of your subordinates. Of 
course there is good reason for this silence on the part of that officialism thus indicted. 
It is guilty. But yet what are you sworn to do in the premises? 

On the 9th instant I have addressed to you a final brief of this malfeasance on the 
part of your seal-island subordinates. Will continued silence on your part vindicate 
them? 

Very truly, yours, Henry W. Elliott. 



60 FUB-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Taking full notice of the fact that the Hon. Nagel did not intend to 
recognize the facts in the premises, Mr. Elliott rearranged the salient 
items of fraud in re of the lessees and mailed them on July 12, 
1909, to President Taft, as follows, to wit: 

The President wants nothing but the facts — -he will attend to nothing else, coming 
from anyone, no matter how close that person may be to him personally. (News 
item.) 

BRIEF. 

Analysis of the sworn official evidence which John Hay transmitted to Congress 
in 1902, which convicts the lessees of the seal islands of Alaska of gaining their lease 
from the Government, on March 12, 1890, by fraud and perjury, and which is self- 
confessed in tnis publication by those lessees aforesaid. 

This proof is detailed in the testimony given to the Ways and Means Committee 
of the House of Representatives by Henry W. Elliott, on January 14, 26, and 28, 
1907. (Said testimony is found in the record of that fur-seal hearing given to Mr. 
Elliott by that committee on those dates and duly preserved on the files.) 

Respectfullv submitted for the information and the use of the President bv Henry 
W. Elliott, July 12, 1909. 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT IN RE FUR-SEAL FRAUDS. 

The evidence which has been sent in to Congress by John Hay that convicts the 
lessees of the seal islands of Alaska of fraud and perjury March 12, 1890, in securing 
their lease from the Government, is found as follows: 

In February, 1890, Secretary Windom invited bids for the renewal of the lease of 
the seal islands of Alaska, said lease to run from May 1, 1890, 20 years. 

On February 20, in the presence of the agents and representatives of the bidders 
for this lease, he opened nine proposals. These bids were all carefully scheduled 
and referred by the Secretary to a board of survey, composed of three chiefs of divisions 
in the Treasury Department. This board was directed to report to the Secretary 
the best bid offered as above stated for the Government to accept. 

This board of survey found that the bid of the North American Commercial Co., 
of San Francisco, Gal., was the best for the public and so reported to Mr. Windom. 
This rinding was unofficially made known to the bidders, and the Secretary informed 
the president of the North American Commercial Co., Isaac Liebes, that on the 12th 
of March this lease aforesaid would be awarded to him then if he appeared at the Treas- 
ury Department at that time and complied with the stipulations and regulations 
demanded by law and the department. 

Mr. Liebes appeared as desired and above cited. Mr. Windom then said to him 
that he had been credibly informed by good authority that Mr. Liebes and his asso- 
ciate bidders, in the name of the North American Commercial Co., were owners of 
pelagic hunting schooners and interested in the buying and selling of fur-seal skins 
taken at sea. If that were true then Mr. Windom said that he had a plain duty to 
perform and would throw out the bid of the North American Commercial Co. 

President Liebes replied that this charge that he and his associates then owned a 
pelagic hunting schooner or schooners or were then interested in the buying and 
selling of pelagic skins was not true. He said that he and his associates had disposed 
of all their interests in pelagic sealing vessels and skins and came into this bidding 
entirely clean and free of any association with or interest in that business of pelagic 
sealing as charged. 

Secretary Windom then told him that he (Liebes) must make oath to that declara- 
tion; that if he did so then this lease aforesaid would be duly awarded to the North 
American Commercial Co. 

Mr. Liebes replied and said that he was then ready to do so; and he did so in the 
presence of the Secretary and the several chiefs of division, who formed the Board of 
Survey, as above stated. This oath having been duly made and recorded, Mr. Windom 
then, on March 12, 1890, formally executed the lease and awarded it to the North 
American Commercial Co. aforesaid. (See pp. 142-143, H. Doc. No. 175, 54th Cong., 
2d sess.) 

When Mr. Isaac Liebes swore, on the 12th day of March, 1890, that neither he nor 
any of his associates in the North American Commercial Co. owned pelagic hunting 
vessels or were interested in the business of pelagic sealing, on that day and date 
aforesaid he committed deliberate perjury, and by so doing he secured that lease from 
the Government, as above described, in a fraudulent manner. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 61 

The official sworn proof of this perjury aforesaid is found in the following: Report 
on the foreign relations of the United States, 1902, Appendix I, etc., sent into Con- 
gress by John Hay. This Appendix I is also published as House Document No. 1, 
Fifty-seventh Congress, second session. 

On page 203 of this House Document No. 1 aforesaid is the sworn official oath of sole 
ownership of the pelagic hunt ing schooner Janus Hamilton Lewis, executed January 10, 
1890, by Herman Liebes, the partner of Isaac Liebes and associate member and director 
of the North American Commercial Co. aforesaid. 

This record of the ownership* of the James Hamilton Lewis as above cited, in the 
name of Herman Liebes, associate incorporator and director of the said North Amer- 
ican Commercial Co. (with Isaac liebes, D. O. Mills, and Lloyd Tevis), stands with- 
out change on the books of the United States customhouse, office of the collector of 
the port. San Francisco, CaL, as quoted above, up to September 17, 1890. Then this 
sealing schooner, the James Hamilton Lewis, is sold by H. Liebes to H. Liebes & 
Co. (Inc.). So that, then, this said vessel stands on the collector's books as the prop- 
erty of Herman and Isaac Liebes. (See p. 120, "Exhibit A," H. Doc. No. 1, aforesaid.) 

Then and thereafter, up to July 29, 1891, this sworn proof of the ownership of that 
vessel, as above cited, stands without change; but on this date a bill of sale is made 
of that vessel by H. Liebes & Co. (Inc.) to Max Waizman, etc. (See p. 120, Exhibit A, 
H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sjes.) 

Thus the State Department, in this form and time, sends the proof clear and undis- 
putable to Congress that Isaac Liebes, president of the North American Commer- 
cial Co., of San Francisco, CaL, did, on the 12th day of March, 1890, utter fraud and 
perjury in the presence of the Secretary of the Treasury, William Windom; that by 
said utterance he fraudulently secured the lease of the seal islands of Alaska, as above 
stated, from the Government. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

July 12, 1909. 

All of which is respectfully submitted on this 12th day of July, 1909, for the informa- 
tion and the use of the President of the United States. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

The President, after studying them, on July 29, 1909, sent them 
to Secretary Nagel for examination and report, and on the 6th of 
August following Elliott finally was recognized as follows: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, August 6, 1909. 
Sir: The receipt is acknowledged, by reference from the President, of your commu- 
nication of the 12th ultimo, in which you make certain charges against the North 
American Commercial Co. in connection with its lease of the seal islands. 

In reply you are advised that your letter and the statements contained therein will 
receive proper consideration. 

Respectfully, Ormsby McHarg, 

Assistant Secretary. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

77 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. 

Did Secretary Nagel ever make any "examination" into these 
grave charges and official proof cited of the truth of them? Not a 
line has ever been put upon the files of his office which declares that 
he did so, but he did authorize a newspaper scout named Gus Karger 
to publish the following improper and untruthful statement, to wit: 

I. Secretary Nagel has instructed them (the officials of the United States Fish 
Commission) to pay no attention to his (Elliott's) charges. * * * 

II. Elliott has made charges against James G. Blaine, John Hay, and Charles 
Foster. * * * He has also made charges against Hon. John W. Foster. * * * 

III. He (Elliott) was thrown almost bodily out of the Ways and Means Committee 
on account of getting into a controversy there with the Hon. Sereno Payne, the chair- 
man. * * * 

IV. He used to be an authority 20 years ago, * * * but he is now getting 
somewhat confused. * * * 

The officials of the Bureau of Fisheries have a most intense dislike for this 
man * * *. — (Cincinnati Times-Star, Aug. 30, 1909.) 



62 EUE-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 

The last effort made by Charles Nagel as Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor to shield these guilty lessees and his own subordinates 
from exposure and punishment is found fully made in the following 
letter to Hon. Wesley L. Jones, chairman Senate Committee on 
Fisheries. Mr. Nagel deliberately uses a series of "loaded" skin 
weights to deceive Senator Jones, thus : 

February 23, 1911. 
Hon. Wesley L. Jones, 

United States Senate, Washington, D . C. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, 
inclosing a communication to you from Henry W. Elliott relative to the sealskins 
taken on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1910. Mr. Elliott sends you a 
memorandum giving certain data which he wishes you to believe were taken from 
the Fur Trade Review for February, 1911, showing that 8,000 skins out of the 12,920 
sold in London in December last were taken in violation of the regulations of the 
department. 

Mr, Elliott's statements relative to fur seals and the fur-seal question have for many 
years been characterized by reckless extravagance. As long ago as 1886 the governor 
of Alaska in his official report to the President of the United States for that year (p. 
22) said: 

"The fact is either Mr. Elliott entertains a mistaken idea of the duty he owes to his 
employers (the Alaska Commercial Co., by whom I am unwilling to believe him 
prompted in his persistent misrepresentations of Alaska and her people), or else he 
must be governed by a malicious hatred of the people of this Territory, among whom 
he is chiefly noted on account of the colossal impediment with which his veracity 
seems to be afflicted. It is incomprehensible why the statements of this man under 
the circumstances should be accepted by committees of Congress in matters pertaining 
to a Territory he has not seen for a dozen years in preference to those of officers of the 
Government who are on the ground and sworn to faithfully and conscientiously guard 
the interests committed to their care." 

The memorandum of Mr. Elliott states: 

"On pages 61 and 62 of the New York Fur Trade Review for February 1911, * * * 
is the following official classification of the sale made December 16 last of the fur- 
seal skins taken as above cited, to wit: 

78 "smalls," or 3-year-olds 7^ to 8 lb. skins 

793 large pups, or "short" 3-year-olds and "long" 2-year-olds 6 J to 7 lb. skins 

3,775 "middling pups" or "short" 2-year-olds and "long" yearlings. 5J to 6 lb. skins 

6,195 "small pups" or yearlings 4^ to 5 lb. skins 

1,809 "ex. sm. pups" or "short" yearlings 3J to 4 lb. skins 

270 (not well classified) . 

It is believed that you will be interested in learning that the foregoing figures, sub- 
mitted by Elliott as being contained in the issue of the Fur Trade Review, do not 
appear therein but have been deliberately supplied for the purpose of influencing you 
and the members of your committee. The Fur Trade Review article gives a detailed 
statement of the sales of sealskins in London, but differs from the Elliott quotation 
thereof in the following particulars, as you may readily ascertain by consulting the 
publication: (1) The official record of the sales of the various sizes of sealskins shows a 
material difference from Elliott's figures, of which not a single one is correctly given; 
(2) The official statement contains no reference whatever to the ages of the seals, and 
all the ages inserted in Elliott's alleged quotation are fictitious; and (3) the printed 
record makes no mention whatever of the weights of the skins, all the figures given by 
Elliott being supplied by him for his own purposes. 

As you are doubtless aware, the trade designations of the sealskins ("smalls," "large 
pups," "small pups," etc.) have no reference to the actual ages of the seals. Thus, 
the term "small pups" include seals 2 years old whose skins weigh over 5 pounds and 
less than 6 pounds, while the term "large pups" is applied to skins that weigh over 6£ 
pounds. 

For your information, there is appended hereto a statement received from Messrs. 
Lampson & Co., of London, dated November 9, 1910, by which firm these skins were 
sold, showing the number, weights, and classification as to size of the skins to which 
Elliott refers. These weights correspond with those taken on the islands before 
shipment. The smallest weights reported by Lampson are 4 pounds 10 ounces, of which 
Weight there were only 11 skins. The next smallest weight thus reported was 4 pounds 
15 ounces, or within 1 ounce of the size prescribed by the departmental regulations, 
and these embrace only 81 skins; this immaterial underweight was due to the excessive 



FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 63 

care of the natives in removing from the skins every vestige of fatty tissue for food. 
There were thus only 92 skins which, while taken in conformity with law, were under 
the limit of 5 pounds prescribed by the department, and of these between 70 and 75 
per cent were taken for food purposes by the natives after the close of the regular 
killing season. 

When the possibilities of error in judgment as to weight of pelts not yet removed 
from the seals and of unavoidable accidents incident to the killing of thousands of 
animals are considered, the wonder is that there are so few undersized animals killed. 
The results indicate careful supervision by the agents and also accuracy on the part 
of the clubbers. 

The law forbids the killing of seals less than 1 year old except when necessary to 
secure food for the natives. This necessity did not arise in 1910, and, consequently, 
no seals under 1 year old were killed in that year. 

Respectfully, Charles Nagel, Secretary, 

To heighten the meanness and deceit employed by Secretary 
Nagel in the foregoing letter, he uses a retracted and self-confessed 
slander uttered by " the governor of Alaska" (A. P. Swineford) . The 
"governor" was haled before the House Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries to answer for the libel above quoted by Nagel, 
and then and there made a complete and full retraction of it. "I 
have been misled and misinformed," he told the chairman. (See 
H. Rep. 3883, 50th Cong., 2d sess, App. A, pp. XXV-XXVIII.) 

And furthermore, and in proof of the fact that Charles Nagel, 
Secretary of Commerce and Labor, was specifically informed of the 
illegal and improper killing being done on the Seal Islands of Alaska 
under his authority and by his authority, the following additional 
sworn proof of that guilty knowledge possessed by Mr. Nagel, is 
offered, to wit: — 

Exhibit A. 

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE OF THE CAMP FIRE CLUB TO SECRETARY NAGEL. 

[Italics ours.] 

Bedford Park, 
New York City, May 10, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: I am sorry to be obliged to pursue the interests of the fur seal any further; but 
a recent publication of news from Washington compels me to do so. 

Closely following the information that you have placed the seal islands in charge of 
the Bureau of Fisheries, I am confronted by this alleged statement by Commissioner 
Bowers, as published by Mr. Ashmun Brown, regular correspondent, in the Seattle 
Post-Intelligencer, on Sunday, May 1: 

Commissioner Bowers said to-day: 

" Certainly there will be no wholesale killing; but some seals in {lie herd ought to be 
killed from time to time, and that is all that is intended." 

To all those who know that the situation demands, for at least five years, a complete 
cessation of all seal killing on the Pribilof Islands, coupled with the knowledge that 
Commissioner Bowers and his advisers on the fur seal hold to the view that a certain 
percentage of fur seals should be killed each year — "for the good of the herd" — the 
publication quoted above is rather startling. I would be glad to know whether Com- 
missioner Bowers has been correctly quoted, and also whether it really is his intention 
to kill seals "from time to time." 

At the hearing before the Senate Committee on Conservation, on March 22, I 
became painfully conscious of the fact that Mr. Lembkey, who is one of Commis- 
sioner Bowers's chief advisers, earnestly desires that the killing of seals shall go on, 
and that evidently it was through his advice that a very large appropriation was 
asked for, for the purchase of a plant which would facilitate such operations. It 
seemed to me perfectly evident that Mr. Lembkey is anxious to have the job of super- 
intending the killing of the seals on the islands; and therefore I regard his presence 
on the fur-seal board of the Fisheries Bureau, and as an adviser to Fish Commissioner 
Bowers, as dangerous to the interests of the fur seal. 



64 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

While I am on this subject I desire to respectfully call your attention to the fact 
that at least a majority of the advisory board of the fur-seal service — if not indeed 
the whole body — is of the opinion that the .killing of surplus male seals should go on 
to the extent of 95 per cent each year. This fact is fully attested in recommendation 
No. 2, as adopted on November 23, 1909, at a full meeting of the board. You will 
find it in the copy of the recommendations now on file in your office. The advisory 
board of seven persons and the fur-seal board of the Fisheries Bureau, also consisting 
of seven persons, not only jointly approved the making of a new killing lease, as shown 
by recommendation No. 1, but also, by direct implication, approved the killing of 
"95 per cent of the 3-year-old male seals." The advisory board completely failed 
to recommend a close season for the fur seals, or for any restriction on commercial 
killing, beyond a paltry 5 per cent per annum of the 3-year-old males. 

In view of the present situation, I respectfully suggest that, because of his personal 
interests in the killing of fur seals for commercial purposes, it is to the interest of the 
Government that Mr. Walter I. Lembkey be dropped from the fur-seal board, and 
that Mr. Henry W. Elliott, of Cleveland, Ohio, should be appointed to a position on 
the advisory board. I think it is no more than fair that among the 14 persons who 
hold the fate of the fur seal in their hands there should be at least one person who can 
represent the views of a very large number of sportsmen and naturalists who are inter- 
ested in seeing the fur-seal industry restored by the most thorough and expeditious 
methods, but whose views are not at present represented in any manner whatsoever 
before your department. 

Yours, very respectfully, 

W. T. Hornaday, 

Chairman, etc. 

Mr. Nagel replies deliberately to Dr. Hornaday in the following 
letter, which is both arrogant, and insulting, to wit: 

Exhibit B 

letter from secretary nagel to the committee of the camp fire club. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, May 15, 1910. 
Sir: I have read your letter of the 10th instant with some surprise. As you know, 
you have been given the fullest opportunity to give your advice as to the management 
of the seal herds before the congressional committees, and with respect to the par- 
ticular subject which you now have in mind your advice was not accepted. If you 
had not had the opportunity to present your views, and urged them for the first time 
now, I might have some questions as to the propriety of my course. But since all the 
phases were presented to the committee, and Congress by unanimous vote charged 
me with the responsibility of determining what should be done by way of killing, 
you will appreciate that I must regard the question as closed. 

I may add that as far as I know there are only two persons who manifest any interest 
in this matter and who differ from the view which has been accepted by Congress 
and by the department. I have reason to believe that members of the Camp Fire 
Club who have had an opportunity to visit the islands and to see the seal herds — a 
privilege of which I believe you have not availed yourself — entertain views directly 
opposed to yours. In fact, I would be glad to know whether you are writing in your 
own person, or as representative of the club, when you sign yourself as chairman. 

Now, Mr. Hornaday, you have considerable responsibilities in your official employ- 
ment, and I shall endeavor not to molest you. I hope that you will accord me the 
same privilege in my capacity. I always welcome advice; I do not fear criticism; 
but I do discourage unnecessary comment upon other men engaged in my bureau 
who are charged with responsible duties, who are expected to be loyal, and who are 
not in a position to defend themselves. I regard it as my part to speak up for them. 
Respectfully, 

Charles Nagel, 

Secretary. 
Mr. W. T. Hornaday, 

Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation, 

The Camp Fire Club of America. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 65 

This throat of Mr. Xagel "to molest" Dr. Ilornaday if the latter 
did not diop this business of looking at the manner in which those 
public interests were being destroyed, did not prevent Dr. Hornaday 
from continuing that observation, for the following answer by him 
was quickly made, which gave Secretary Xagel full knowledge and 
ample warning of what he might expect if he pursued this seal herd 
witn illegal slaughter, to wit: 

Exhibit C. 

letter from the committee to secretary nagel. 

Bedford Park, 

New York City, May IS, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 15 in reply to my inquiry regarding the accuracy 
of the published interview quoting Commissioner Bowers as saying that fur seals are 
to be killed by your department this year on the Pribilof Islands confirms my worst 
fears. You do not contradict the published information that seal-killing operations 
are to proceed this year under your authority and direction. You and the friends of 
the fur seal are now literally at the parting of the ways, and only your calmest judg- 
ment can save you from making a very grave mistake. 

If the English language has any meaning, your own letter clearly indicates that 
it is your intention to go on killing seals. It means that you will not permit the harried 
herds anything in the nature of a close season. You say that my advice on this point 
"was not accepted." You assume that Congress agrees with you regarding the con- 
tinued killing of seals, and you say that you "regard the question as closed." 

I think the inclosed printed report of the Camp Fire Club's committee on game 
protective legislature will show you whether or not I represent the Camp Fire Club, 
or at least all of it except the one member who is known to share your views. 

Your implied threat to me if I pursue this matter any further is of no effect 
anywhere. You are welcome to "molest" me if you can. But it happens that I am 
not on trial in this matter or in any other. I do not write you now to threaten you, 
but only to give you, in the friendliest spirit in the world, a solemn warning not to 
commit an act that will be a grave error. If you have read the newspapers during the 
past three months, you must know that the acts of even a Cabinet officer are subject to 
review by the public he is supposed to serve, and no threats of yours, either expressed 
or implied, will for one moment deter me and the hundreds of strong and capable men 
I represent from holding you accountable for your future acts regarding the fur seal. 
We do not propose that our work shall be nullified in the manner that you calmly 
propose. 

You say my "views were not accepted." This would be important if it were true. 

Why did President Taft send a special message to Congress to provide against the 
making of a new killing lease? 

To stop the killing of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. 

Did the President, or did Senator Dixon's committee, or the United States Senate, 
intend for one moment that you should go right on in the bloody killing business 
without a halt? 

No! A thousand times no, and you know it! 

Was it not partly for the purpose of clearing our hands of fur-seal blood and clearing 
the road for treaties by the State Department that the new law was driven through 
Congress? 

You now propose to nullify the whole act, and set up Lembkey in the killing business 
in place of the North American Commercial Co. 

When you and I were before the Senate Committee I saw clearly what was in Lemb- 
key 's mind, and at last I suspected what was in yours. It was then that I demanded 
of you a positive assurance regarding your intentions, some proof that you were giving 
the committee a square deal. And what did you reply? 

You were careful to give no assurance whatever. You merely shifted uneasily in 
your chair and said, "I would like to have the right to kill seals, for I think it would 
be a good thing to hold it as a club over the heads of the pelagic sealers," or words to 
that effect. 

21588—13- — 5 



-66 FTJK-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

Now, what is it that you are really going to do? 

You propose to use the bloody club on the seals themselves forthwith; and you 
propose to pay good Government money for a lot of old junk with which to carry on 
the seal-slaughtering business. 

I tell you, Mr. Secretary, that the records of the last 15 years of fur-seal history are 
black with official blunders, and some other things even more serious. The records are 
all accessible for publication, if necessary. I had hoped that through President Taf t's 
wise, prompt, and very statesmanlike initiative a new era had dawned. I know that the 
United States Senate intends that there shall be a change for the better, and I know 
that in the Senate my views regarding the stoppage of seal killing just now are accepted. 
If you doubt it, we can very easily have that question decided in the Senate Chamber. 
I warn you that if you permit any seals to be killed on those islands during your term 
of office it will be a breach of the fa-'th that has been reposed in you by the Senate 
Committee on the Conservation of National Resources. As to the consequences of 
this course, it is not necessary for me to make any predictions just now. 
Yours, very truly, 

W. T. HORNADAY, 

Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation and Preserves. 
Approved by — 

Julius H. Seymour, 
Council for the Camp Fire Club. 
May 18, 1910. 

This vigorous, square, truth-telling letter, as above quoted, of Dr. 
Hornaday, stung Secretary Nagel into the following answer, which at 
once squarely puts him in the light of having full knowledge of what 
the nature of the illegal killing he was about to perpetuate was, to wit: 

Exhibit D. 

letter from secretary nagel to the committee. 

Department op Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 

Washington, May 23, 1910. 

Dear Sir: I have read your letter of the 18th instant. It is apparent that further 
correspondence will not aid the situation. You are entitled, however, to know the 
position of the department, and I shall endeavor to state it as briefly as possible. 

That pelagic sealing ought to be stopped is admitted by everyone, and every effort 
is being made to put a stop to this brutal and uneconomic practice. So far nothing 
positive has been accomplished. You are of the opinion that in the meantime the 
preservation of the seal herds would be furthered by a closed season upon the islands 
for a certain number of years. As to this there is, to say the least, a difference of 
opinion. Those who have been charged with the responsibility to investigate these 
conditions advise that a cessation to the killing will only play into the hands of pelagic 
sealers. They are of the opinion that the killing of a large proportion of male seals 
is not only safe, but conduces to the preservation of the herd. It is proposed, for the 
present, to proceed upon this theory, as Congress is understood to have contemplated 
when the new law was enacted. The President and the State Department are fully 
advised of what it is proposed to do. I think it right to inform you because you seem 
to contemplate steps to have the policy of this department reversed. Inasmuch as 
the season is approaching, any action of that kind ought to be taken promptly. 

In your letter of the 10th instant you said that "because of his personal interests 
in the killing of fur seals for commercial purposes it is to the interests of the Govern- 
ment that Mr. Walter I. Lembkey be dropped from the fur-seal board." More es- 
pecially because of the use of that language, I asked you whether you were writing 
in your own person or as representative of the club. You now assure me that you 
represent the club, and I must call on you to specify your complaint against Mr. 
Lembkey. If your objection is based merely upon a difference of opinion between you 
and Mr. Lembkey as to the wisdom of killing seals, it will serve no purpose to discuss 
the matter further with me. If, however, you mean to say that Mr. Lembkey is 
disqualified as an official because of personal or financial interests in the killing of fur 
seals for commercial purposes, then it is fair that he should be notified of that charge, 
and that the department should be advised at once in order that it may investigate. 
If you are prepared to specify so that this matter may be made the subject of an 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 67 

inquiry, I shall be obliged to have you do it promptly, because Mr. Lembkey is 
expected to leave for Alaska in the near future, and after he has gone it will be diffi- 
cult to make a change or even to communicate in time to take action. 
Respectfully, 

Charles Nagel, Secretary. 

Dr. W. T. Hornaday, 

Camp Fire Club of America, New York City. 

P. S. — Since dictating the above, Mr. Bowers has shown me your letter to him of 
the 19th instant. You make serious comments upon one or more of the fur-seal 
experts or expert advisers. Of course, I do not know what you have in mind, but 
inasmuch as these advisers occupy positions of some responsibility, especially at this 
time, it is of great importance to me to know the facts just as promptly as possible, 
and you are therefore invited to put in my possession all such statements as you may 
be willing to give that will enable me to make a proper inquiry. 

Charles Nagel, Secretary. 

To this letter asking for specific charges, Dr. Hornaday at once scut 
the foil, wing direct, pointed specifications, to wit: 

Exhibit C. 

letter from the committee to secretary nagel. 

Bedford Park, 

New York City, May 18, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of May 15 in reply to my inquiry regarding the accuracy 
of the published interview quoting Commissioner Bowers as saying that fur seals are 
to be killed by your department this year on the Pribilof Islands confirms my worsl 
fears. You do not contradict the published information that seal-killing operations 
are to proceed this year under your authority and direction. You and the friends of 
the fur seal are now literally at the parting 'of the ways, and only your calmest judg- 
ment can save you from making a very grave mistake. 

If the English language has any meaning, your own letter clearly indicates that it is 
your intention to go on killing seals. It means that you will not permit the harried 
herds anything in the nature of a close season. You say that my advice on this point 
"was not accepted." You assume that Congress agrees with you regarding the con- 
tinued killing of seals, and you say that you "regard the question as closed." 

I think the inclosed printed report of the Camp Fire Club's committee on game 
protective legislation will show you whether or not I represent the Camp Fire Club, 
or at least all of it except the one member who is known to share your views. 

Your implied threat to me if I pursue this matter any further is of no effect anywhere. 
You are welcome to "molest " me if you can. But it happens that I am not on trial in 
this matter or in any other. I do not write you now to threaten you, but only to give 
you, in the friendliest spirit in the. world, a solemn warning not to commit an act that 
wall be a grave error. If you have read the newspapers during the past three months, 
you must know that the acts of even a Cabinet officer are subject to review by the public 
he is supposed to serve, and no threats of yours, either expressed, or implied, will foi 
one moment deter me and the hundreds of strong and capable men I represent from 
holding you accountable for your future acts regarding the fur seal. We do not propose 
that our work shall be nullified in the manner that you calmly propose. 

You say my "views were not accepted." This would be important if it were true. 

Why did President Taft send a special message to Congress to provide against the 
making of a new killing lease? 

To stop the killing of the fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. 

Did the President, or did Senator Dixon's committee, or the United States Senate, 
intend for one moment that you should go right on in the bloody killing business 
without a halt? 

No! A thousand times no, and you know it! 

Was it not partly for the purpose of clearing our hands of fur-seal blood and clearing 
the road for treaties by the State Department that the new law was driven through 
Congress? 

I respectfully suggest that the American people will be interested in knowing 
through your investigations how many female seals and very young seals were killed 
during the past eight years when on outsiders were visiting the islands to observe 



68 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

and report. It appears to be a fact that the sales of skins from our islands have shown 
the slaughter of many yearling and pup seals, contrary to law. Now, who is to blame 
for permitting that slaughter? 

I will also point out to you that the report of the total number of. seals surviving 
last year, as made to you by Mr. Clark and published by you, is manifestly erroneous 
and absurd in that it reports a number of living seals far in excess of existing facts. 
At present I will do no more than draw you attention to the fact (officially published) 
that on December 17, 1903, Mr. Walter I. Lembkey declared to his chief in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor (Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock), in the presence of Mr. 
Henry W. Elliott, "that at the close of the season of 1903, August 1; the whole num- 
ber of fur seals alive then on the Pribilof Islands was not to exceed 150,000." 

Now, Mr. Secretary, I ask you: Where is the man of intelligence who will have 
the hardihood to say that the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, harried constantly, as 
they have been by a powerful fleet of pelagic sealers, have not decreased more than 
10 per cent since December, 1903? Look at the London market reports of the annual 
catches of the pelagic sealers of "Alaskan" seals; consider that according to your 
own Mr. Lembkey two seals are killed and lost for every one killed and secured by 
the pelagic sealers; then decide whether you think the total number of seals has not 
enormously decreased during the past seven years. And yet your Mr. Clark has 
officially reported to his chief that the seals on the islands "now number less than 
140,000" (see your annual report). Why should "140,000" be suggested, when the 
real figure can hardly be one-half that? Was it not to deceive you into thinking that 
the number so deftly suggested is approximately the real number living? I claim that 
it was. 

Who is there that will go before the American people and assert that there are now 
more than 60,000 seals belonging to our islands, except the men who wish to make a 
living by killing them? That there were only 14,336 killable seals on the islands 
last year, when 15,000 were desired, is very significant. 

We are now at the parting of the ways; for I see clearly that you and the Camp Fire 
Club of America do not agree on any one essential point. We shall feel it our duty 
to appeal to the President, asking him to take the responsibility of directing a sup- 
pression of hostilities by your department. We shall tell him that when you were 
before Senator Dixon's committee that committee unsuspectingly approved your 
bill (clothing yourself with most absolute powers) in the belief that no seals were to 
be killed by your orders in the immediate future. Fortunately, it was first promised 
that you should have $100,000 for the purchase of the effects of the North American 
Commercial Co. Then it was pointed out that if no seals were killed and no wages 
paid the natives therefor the entire support of the natives must be provided by 
Congress. 

As you will undoubtedly remember, and as the records will show, there exists 
abundant documentary proof of this fact. It was your Mr. Lembkey who then said: 
"Well, gentlemen, if there is to be no seal killing then we will need, a larger appro- 
priation to enable us to take care of those natives." Thereupon some one finally pro- 
posed $50,000 as the additional amount necessary for the support of the natives because 
no seals were to be killed by them, and they would receive no wages as they hereto- 
fore have done. The $100,000 you originally proposed was then and there increased 
to $150,000 for that purpose. It was appropriated by Congress, promptly and cheer- 
fully, and you have it to-day. 

But the unquestionable "gentleman's understanding" on which that extra $50,000 
was granted you does not rest on my memory, nor even upon the stenographic report 
of the hearing before the Senate Committee on Conservation. What the committee 
expected of you and the purpose of that extra $50,000 was clinched on the floor of the 
Senate by Chairman Dixon in the following words, explaining to Senator Hale why 
your appropriation was to be so large as $150,000: 

"But in the meantime, if we put into effect the closed season, these Indians will be 
living on the islands with nothing to live upon, with no physicians or schools; and in 
view of their support and maintenance temporarily, until the killing again takes place, 
the Secretary felt that the Government should make some provision to take care of 
them in the meantime." (Congressional Record, Mar. 23, 1910, p. 3655.) 

The "Secretary" referred to was Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, who, with $50,000 to his credit especially to enable him to maintain 300 natives 
without paying them wages for butchering seals, now calmly proposes to accept the 
advice of the evil genius of the fur seal, and go right on with killing operations. 

As indisputable evidence I will attach to this letter a portion of the Congressional 
Record containing Senator Dixon's exact language. 

Now, what was the intention of President William H. Taft, when he penned his 
special message to Congress in behalf of the fur seal? Here are his exact words, as 
published in Senate Document No. 430, March 15. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 69 

"The policy which the United States has adopted with respect to the killing of 
seals on the islands is not believed to have had a substantial effect upon the reduction 
of the herd; but the discontinuance of this policy is recommended in order that the 
United States may be free to deal with the general question in its negotiations with 
foreign countries. To that end it is recommended that the leasing system be aban- 
doned for the present, and that the Government take over entire control of the islands, 
including the inhabitants and the seal herds. The objection which has heretofore 
been made to this policy, upon the ground that the Government would engage in pri- 
vate business, has been deprived of practical force. The herds have been reduced 
to such an extent that the question of profit has become a mere incident, and the con- 
trolling question has become one of conservation." 

As any man may see from the foregoing, the President and Congress intended, and 
still do intend, that the slaughter of fur seals on our islands shall immediately cease! 
Just when they will be willing for killing to be resumed is a question that the future 
alone can determine. Congress, as representing the people of this Nation, desires 
that the international fur-seal disgrace shall end immediately, and that blundering 
shall cease. The good intentions of the President and Congress are entirely beyond 
dispute. They accepted your bill without question; and they gave you $50,000 for 
the first year's maintenance of the natives who no longer would draw wages from seal 
butchery. They even gave V ou ) m ost generously, and almost without question, 
$100,000 with which to buy up the old property of the outgoing lessees — old junk, we 
call it — at prices to be fixed by your representatives. 

All this was done in the belief that you honestly intended to take the first and 
most important step in ending the great scandal. 

We warn you not to make a false step in this matter. If you carry out your present 
intention blame will fall heavily, and it will fall upon you and Commissioner George 
M. Bowers. The public will not care who advised you two to break faith with Congress 
or who ' ' concurs " in it. You will be arraigned on the floors of Congress and in the press 
of America, and if the terms of your arraignment are severe you will have only your- 
self and the evil genius of the fur seal to thank for it. 

The moderate tone of your last letter has made me feel deeply sorry that you are 
being led by blind guides into a totally false position, and one which quickly will 
prove very hateful to you. I am taking all this trouble to warn you because Senator 
Dixon has assured me that at heart you are a very conscientious man. You have 
not followed the fortunes of the fur seal for 30 years, as I have. You are depending 
upon the advice of men who are giving you bad advice — for several different reasons. 
The one man whose advice would be worth most to you — Mr. Henry W. Elliott — is 
cordially disliked by some of the "fur-seal" experts whose mistakes he has merci- 
lessly exposed. 

If the Secretary of State really wishes you to slaughter seals in order to facilitate 
the making of treaties against seal slaughter (?), then may Heaven help his "nego- 
tiations," for assuredly they will need it. In the well-nigh annihilation of the fur- 
seal industry the Department of State already has many failures to answer for, and 
it is high time for those failures to give place to one diplomatic success. 
Yours, very truly, 

V\ . T. Hornaday, 
Chairman Committee on Game Protective Legislation and Preserves, 

Camp-Fire Club of America. 

Approved and signed by — 

Julius H. Seymour, 

Counsel. 
A. S. Houghton. 
Charles D. Cleveland. 
Manhall McLean. 
George Wm. Burleigh. 
■VvilliAxVj B Greeley. 

Did Charles Nagel attempt to answer and deny those specific 
charges of fraud and wrongdoing put up to him in the above responsi- 
ble and authoritative form and record ? No. He issued his orders 
as usual to Walter I. Lembkey, and killed in the following June and 
July 12,920 seals, out of which 7,733 were self-confessed yearling- 
seals — self-confessed bv his own agent, Lembkev. (See Hearing No. 
9, pp. 434, 435, 436-442, 443, Apr. 13, 1913; H. Com. Exp. Dept. 
C. & L.) 



70 EUE-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Ill conclusion, and cumulative proof of this charge against Charles 
Nagel as above made May 18, 1910, is the following letter of United 
States Senator Dixon, chairman of the Committee on Conservation 
of National Resources, United States Senate, who exposes the fact 
that he has been deceived by Charles Nagel with regard to this very 
subject of Dr. Hornaday's letter of above quotation, to wit: 

United States Senate, 
Committee on Conservation op National Resources, 

May 23, 1910. 
My Dear Dr. Hornaday: I had a personal talk with Secretary Nagel the other 
day regarding the matter of killing some of the male seals, and after he had explained 
to me the circumstances, I felt better contented. I think you can rest assured that 
the killing will only be to make a show, with the understanding that this move is 
done at the instance and request of the State Department, in order to cover certain 
phases of the international treaty negotiations, which Secretary Nagel says are now 
pending. I wish I could quote you some of his statements made, but he says that the 
understanding between Knox and himself is thorough regarding the matter, and he 
feels positive that he is pursuing the right source at this special time. 

I do not believe, from his statement, that any great number of seals will be killed, 
and that as soon as the pending negotiations are settled the policy of killing will be 
reversed . 

Yours, very truly, 

Jos. M. Dixon. 
Dr. W. T. Horbaday, 
2969 Decatur Avenue, 

Bedford Park, N. Y. 

This letter of Dixon to Hornaday shows that Nagel had deliberately 
deceived Senator Dixon as to his intended purpose of violating the 
close time in 1910, which he had promised the Senate Committee on 
Conservation of National Resources March 22, 1910, he could order 
for the season right ahead, and for which close time he received $50,000 
from the committee to support the natives during the year in that 
idleness which would follow. 

Dr. Hornaday. The same date; that is to say, in the hearing of March 22, 1910 
[reading] : 

"Present: Senators Dixon (Chairman), Dick, Jones, Briggs, Dillingham, Guggen- 
heim, Heyburn, Dolliver, Clark of Wyoming, Bankhead, Overman, and Smith of 
South Carolina. 

"Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Labor; Solici- 
tor Charles Earl; George M. Bowers, Commissioner of the Bureau of Fisheries; Dr. 
B. W. Everham, of the Bureau of Fisheries; Walter I. Lembkey, agent of the seal 
fisheries; and Dr. W. T. Hornaday appeared." 

The first appropriation asked for by Mr. Nagel, with which to carry out the terms 
of the bill which he had drafted, was $100,000. That sum was to be used chiefly in 
buying the properties and paraphernalia of the outgoing North American Commercial 
Co., in order that with that paraphernalia the business of killing seals could be 
continued. 

In behalf of the Camp Fire Club I called attention to the fact that it was desirous 
that the killing should cease for a time, and there should be a closed season, which 
we demanded should be 10 years. That matter was discussed, and it was tacitly 
agreed upon by members of that committee that there should be a closed season, and 
that is what prompted- Senator Dixon to use the expression that he did. Then, said 
Mr. Lembkey, "Gentlemen, if there is to be a closed season, we must have more 
money; we must have money with which to support those natives during their idle 
period." I will read to you the words that I wrote down at the time: 

"Well, gentlemen, if seal killing has to stop, we will have to have a larger appro- 
priation in order to support those 300 natives, whose wages will stop." 

Mr. Townsend. You are quoting Mr. Lembkey now? 

Dr. Hornaday. Yes, sir. On being asked how much more he thought would be 
necessary he said, "We will need about $50,000 more," and that amount was agreed 
to then and there, for the purpose of supporting those idle natives whose wages would 
stop. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 71 

Mr. Townsend. That is tl e explanation Senator Dixon gave to Senator Hale when 
the bill came in with §150.000? 

Dr. Hornaday. Precisely, and that is a matter of record in the records of Congress. 
Now, if that does not prove an understanding that seal killing should stop, then the 
English language is absolutely worthless. 

Mr. Seymour. And tl e $50,000 was appropriated? 

Dr. Horxaday. The §50,000 was appropriated, and Secretary Nagel sat there and 
accepted it. 

Mr. Seymour. For the express purpose of taking care of the Indians during the 
closed season? 

Dr. Hornaday. Precisely, and for no other purpose. 

Mr. Seymour. And Secretary Nagel heard it and understood it and agreed to it, 
did he? 

Dr. Hornaday. He did. and he has the money now, undoubtedly. 

Mr. Townsend. This debate that you introduced in your testimony, covering 
explanations by Senator Dixon to Senator Hale as to why this $50,000 in addition 
was granted, you took from the Congressional Record? 

Dr. Hornaday. Certainly, and from no other source. I clipped pages from the 
Record itself. I did not quo/e it. (Hearing No. 6, pp. 267, 268, July 27, 1911: H. 
Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.) 

Secretary Charles Nagel had full knowledge of the fact that on 
March 9-10, 1904, the Department of Commerce and Labor pledged 
itself to the Ways and Means Committee not to allow any seals killed 
on the Pribilof Islands " under 2 years of age," and this pledge was 
also given to the Senate subcommittee in charge of Alaskan Affairs. 
(Gov. Dillingham, chairman, on Mar. 8, 1904.) 

Mr. Frank H. Hitchcock appeared before the Ways and Means Com- 
mittee on March 9, 1904, and said that he had been sent to represent 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, and to make the following pro- 
posal to the committee. On page 35, Hearings on Fur Seals, Ways 
and Means Committee, Fifth-eighth Congress, second session, on 
House Joint Resolution 124, appears the following: 

Page 35 : 

Mr. Hitchcock. First of all we propose to limit still further the ages at which seals 
can be taken. We will prohibit altogether the killing of seals under 2 years of age. 
We will also prohibit the killing of seals above 4 years of age. Killing will thus be 
restricted to seals between 2 and 4 years old. 

Page 36: 

Mr. Williams of Mississippi. You propose to forbid the killing of seals under 
2 years old? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 

Mr. Wtt.t.tam h. At 2 years of age that is the very time you can tell the difference 
between the bull and the cow. In other words, if you kill nothing under 2 years old 
there should be no reasonable excuse for a mistake in that respect? 

Mr. Hitchcock. You are quite right; that is the point. The great objection to the 
killing of these small seals, and I take it the only objection, is the difficulty in dis- 
tinguishing the males from the females. 

On July 28, 1910, Secretary Charles Nagel received from the 
Bureau of Fisheries a marked copy of the above hearing, and sends 
that notice of this reception to the House Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911, see page 987, 
Appendix A, and the following published charges had also been sent 
to Secretary Nagel as early as June 26, 1909, to wit: 

MEMORANDUM FOR HON. CHAS. NAGEL. 

With special regard for the subject of my letter to you of April 26th instant, I have 
published the following to-day, for which I have the complete warrant and proof in 
hand. 

Henry W. Elliott, 
17 Grace Avenue, Lakewood, Ohio. 
June 26, 1909. 



72 PUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

CHARGES MADE ARE RECORDS — PROF. ELLIOTT DECLARES THEY ARE NOT PERSONAL 
WITH HIM — INVOLVE QUESTION OP SEAL SLAUGHTER — WHY HE TAKES MATTER UP 
WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. 

"Those are not my charges," said Prof. Henry W. Elliott, when questioned Saturday 
by the News concerning the letter he sent to Attorney General Wickersham, and 
which was published in the News Friday. 

" The charges are statements of official record and sworn affidavits in the files of the State 
and Treasury Departments which convict and order the punishment of those men. I 
have merely made an arrangement of them, so that they become at once intelligible 
and indisputable in their showing," replied Elliott. "I found that these men had 
gotten into complete control of the officialism which succeeded John Hay in the 
Department of State, and I had no other way at my command of removing them than 
this one of showing them up." 

ASKED BURTON TO HELP. 

"You say that mutual friends of President Roosevelt and yourself assured you that 
the former would surely act on this showing of yours. Do you mind telling who these 
friends were?" 

"No, I do not object; and I will tell if you press the question: It is a natural one, 
because so many have asked me why Mr. Burton has not insisted on this being done, 
which I now urge upon the Attorney General. Mr. Burton did try to get Secretary 
Root to make a date on which to meet with him and myself, in the State Department; 
this attempt was made by Mr. Burton on March 6, 1907. Root peremptorily refused 
to do so. Mr. Burton was very much surprised, and when he reported that refusal to 
me, I at once told him why Root did not meet us in his (Burton's) presence. Root 
knew I would bring these matters up." 

' ' What is the particular offense of those men whom you desire the Attorney General 
to proceed against and punish?" 

"Those men are the men who, in 1890-91, seduced Mr. Blaine from the path of his 
plain duty in the premises; and that lapse on his part cost us that fiasco at Paris which 
resulted in the award of the Bering Sea tribunal; that award put the fur seal herd of 
Alaska into the hands of the land and sea butchers of it completely; just what it was 
not supposed to do, by the people, and not intended to be; that result has cost us the 
loss of over 5,000,000 of fur seals — a property loss of over $30,000,000 up to date, and 
still this question is unsettled. Now yet, and worse, it has inflicted the most indecent 
and cruel killing of those seals that has ever been licensed by a civilized government; 
all this sin and shame fairly fastened on us by those men. Do you wonder why I want 
them punished?" 

WHY HE DIDN'T GO. 

"Couldn't Senator Burton have gone to see President Roosevelt?" 

"Yes, and, no; necessarily there is a distinct line drawn between the legislative and 
executive officers of our Government; a Senator or a Congressman has no right to go 
down to the office of a Cabinet member and personally order business; and no Cabinet 
officer has the right to go up to a committee in Congress and personally lobby or pro- 
mote his business there. True, some Senators and certain Congressmen and certain 
Cabinet officers do violate this proper rule; but Mr. Burton would not. Mr. Burton 
understands that I am right in this Alaskan fur seal business; he has frankly admitted it, 
and he has explained to my complete satisfaction why he thought it would be useless on his 
part to try and get Roosevelt to act. Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Howland both so understand 
it now, as they would have understood it then," replied Mr. Elliott. 

"Then you believe that these men can be punished on that evidence which you 
ask the Attorney General to order out of the Ways and Means Committee? " 

"There is not a shadow of doubt of it. Why has it been suppressed if that fact of its 
power to convict those men was not well known to certain men close to President 
Roosevelt?" said the professor. (Evening News, Cleveland, Ohio, June 26, 1909.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 73 

RECAPITULATION OF THE PROOF OF GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF CHARLES 
NAGEL IN RE KILLING YEARLING SEALS IN VIOLATION OF LAW 
AND THE REGULATIONS. 

[See Exhibit III for details.] 

April 26, 1909. — Henry W. Elliott gives Secretary Charles Nagel 
specific details of the killing of yearling seals by the agents of the 
Government on the seal islands of Alaska. He urges Nagel to stop 
it and punish the lessees for this criminal trespass. (See pp. 74, 75, 
Dixon Hearings, Rothermel letter, May 20, 1911.) 

May 7, 1909. — Secretary Nagel appoints George A. Clark as a 
special investigator and sends him to the seal islands to report upon 
the truth of Elliott's charges in re killing yearling seals. (See pp. 
819-820, Appendix A, June 24, 1911.) 

September 30, 1909. — George A. Clark reports that Lembkey has 
killed yearling seals during this season of 1909 and in past seasons. 
October 8, Nagel receives this report, and on October 9 he turns it over 
to Lembkey. It is suppressed. (See pp. 850, 851, Appendix A, 
June 24, 1911.) 

May 9, 1910. — With this proof of the truth of Elliott's charges of 
April 26, 1909, in his hands, furnished by his own agent, Clark, Nagel 
to-day again sends Lembkey to the islands to kill seals just as he had 
done in 1909. Lembkey kills 12,920 seals in June and July, 1910. 
On April 13, 1912, he confesses to House Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Commerce and Labor that 7,733 of them were 
yearlings. (See pp. 485, Hearing No. 10.) 

February 4, 1911-May 31, 1911. — Secretary Charles Nagel attends 
sessions of the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of 
Natural Resources and of the House Committee on Expenditures in 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, and his agents admit that 
Lembkey has again been sent with orders to kill in 1911 just as he 
had killed in 1910. And they enter a studied and emphatic denial on 
February 4, 1911, and June 9, 1911, that they have ever killed any 
yearling seals. (See pp. 82, Hearing No. 20, p. 360, Hearing No. 9, 
pp. 434-444, Hearing No. 9.) 

December 15, 1911. — The London sales records show that 12,002 
Pribilof Island fur sealskins were sold to-day, taken last June and 
July (1911), by Nagel, Bowers, and Lembkey; that 6,247 of these 
skins were less than 34 inches long and were thus yearling skins. 
(See pp. 731-733, Hearing No. 12.) 

The guilty knowledge of George M. Bowers, who stated June 9, 
1911, under oath, that the fur sealskins are classified and sold by 
weights in London, said statement being a falsehood and made to 
deceive the committee, and so confessed by his confederate, Chief 
Special Agent Lembkey April 13, 1912, under oath, to the commit- 
tee, to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. Mr. Chairman, may I add one word? In Mr. Elliott's statement it 
appears that "In 1873, early in June, Dr. Mclntyre returned to the seal islands with 
this classification, by measurement, of his Pribilof skins in London." Those meas- 
urements are shown in the monograph — measurements and weights — prepared in 
those days by Mr. Elliott, and in that monograph a yearling skin, a large yearling, 
if I quote the language correctly, is presumed to weigh \\ pounds, and he shows the 
weight each year of the skins from that up to 7h and 8, or more. I do not know how 
to tell the age of a sealskin — that is, the exact and correct age to the day or month — ■ 
any more than a farmer could tell the age of some other fellow's pig if he were not 



74 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

present at the time the pig came into existence, and I can only base the correctness: 
of these weights upon the evidence that was submitted by Mr. Elliott and his mono- 
graph. 

Mr. Townsend. Mr. Commissioner, will you proceed and read the weights of the 
kill of 1910, as certified by Mr. Lembkey? 

Mr. Bowers. I have both the weights on the islands and the weights in London. 

Mr. Townsend. I will examine you now as to the killing of seals after the expi- 
ration of this lease and when the killing was made, as it has been called here by the 
Government. The report shows that in the year 1910, 12,920 seals were killed, and 
the evidence before the committee is that of those 8,000 were yearlings. 

Mr. Bowers. Well, that evidence is false. 

Mr. Townsend. That is your answer to that, is it? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. Here are the weights on the basis, you understand, that 
a 4^-pound skin is a yearling. There are the weights for 1909, the island weights and 
the London weights. I think, probably, you will find one skin weighing less than 
4i pounds. (Hearing No. 3, pp. 129, 130.) 

C. M. Lampson & Co., 

London, November 19, 1910. 

Assortment of Alaska salted fur sealskins for account of United States Government, 
Department of Commerce and Labor. 

[New York, Ck, 1/228.] 

Lbs. Ozs. 

78 smalls 7 15 

713 large pups 7 12 

3,032 middling pups 6 7 

4,899 small pups 5 12 

1,266 ex. small pups 5 5 

11 ex. ex. small pups 4 10 

33 smalls, low 7 11 

135 large pups, low 6 9 

498 middling pups, low 6 1 

501 small pups, low 5 9 

88 ex. small pups, low 5 

10 small, cut 7 2 

71 large pups, cut - 6 13 

238 middling pups, cut 6 2 

421 small pups, cut 5 6 

81 ex. small pups, cut 4 15 

6 small, rubbed 7 

55 large pups, rubbed 6 14 

195 middling pups, nibbed 6 6 

290 small pups, rubbed 5 11 

75 ex. small pups, rubbed 5 3 

36 faulty. 

12,732 average based on December, 1909, prices 144/. 

5 small. 
21 large pups. 
48 middling pups. 
94 small pups. 
18 ex. small pups. 

2 faulty. 

188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/. 

12,920 

Subject to recount. 

Mr. Patton. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the 
selling in London? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the 
skins for the United States Government. 

Mr. Patton. And they pay on that weight? 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 75 

Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those 
weights. 

Mr. Elliott. Right there I want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh 
those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 6, p. 291.) 

In this distinct and positive statement the United States Commis- 
sioner of Fisheries tells the committee that the London classification 
of its 12,920 fur-seal skins, which have been taken on the seal islands 
during its season of 1910 and sold in London December 16, 1910 — that 
this classification is done there by the weights of the skins. 

He does this in full personal knowledge of the fact that those Lon- 
don agents have classified those skins by measurement, so as to get at 
their size; that the buyers care nothing for the weight of the salt cured 
skins — they are buying the skins according to their size. 

That lie made this statement to the committee for the purpose of 
deceiving them, and that he knew better, for he had personally at- 
tended the classification and selling of those skins in London Decem- 
ber 16, 1910, is attested by his own official record, as follows: 

[Appendix A, p. 1009.] 

London, December 16, 1910, 
Hon. Charles Nag el, 

Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Mr. Secretary: I have just wired you the total results of the fur-seal* 
skin sale which has just taken place: 

"Conditions considered, have had a remarkably successful sale. Total amount, 
89,424 pounds." 

When we take into consideration the average grading of the skins as compared 
with last year, there is a loss of only about 3 per cent. 

I am inclosing you a copy of the advertisements for the year 1909 as well as for 
1910. I think it is well to have these for office reference. I had hoped for a larger 
amount, but, after conference with the fur dealers of London, was prepared to receive 
10 per cent or even 15 per cent less than last year's prices, and I think, as I have 
said above, that we had a very successful sale. 

I leave the latter part of the week for Germany and will go direct to Bad Nauheim, 
I regret to say that my condition has not improved. 

Wishing you and yours a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year, 
I am, with renewed assurances of my highest personal esteem and regard, 
Very truly, yours, 

Geo. M. Bowers. 

Here he tells the Secretary that he has been busy with the buyers 
and that he had also been busy with the Lampsons, who did the clas- 
sifying and selling of those small skins to the buyers aforesaid, as his 
own agents. 

That a man of common sense and average ability should personally 
attend this sale as the representative of the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor and then make that dogmatic statement of untruth in 
good faith as to the classification of the skins, as above, is simply 
unbelievable; he knew better; he never had a buyer tell him or his 
own agent tell him that untruth which he tells to the committee 
under oath. 

In further proof of the personal understanding which Mr. Commis- 
sioner Bowers had of what ordered the conduct of the sale of those 
skins, the additional letters are submitted. It is fairly incredible to 
believe that a subject which affected the prices of his skins — the 
"grading" of them as he calls it, or the classification of them — was 



76 FUK-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

not fully explained to him by his agent, the Lampsons, and those 
buyers, whom he speaks of, to wit: 

[Appendix A, pp. 1009-1010.] 

London, December 16, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary of Commerce qnd Labor, 

Washington, D. C, U. S. A. 

My Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find catalogues showing the 
prices received at the auction this day for the fur seals of Alaska and elsewhere, and 
when we take into consideration the number of skins offered for sale and the climatic 
as well as financial conditions, I think we have had. as far as our skins are concerned, 
an exceptionally good sale. 

Lot No. 1 sold at a decline of 20 shillings as compared with last year — this gave me 
the blues. The second lot, 400 large pups, sold at a decline of 9 shillings; this of 
Course was better, but when 6.200 small pups and extra small pups sold at a loss of 
1 shilling as compared with last year, this very much improved the situation. Un- 
fortunately our skins did not grade so well as heretofore. You will observe that the 
664 skins of the North American Commercial Co. did not bring prices nearly so good 
as those gotten by the Government. You will further observe that the skins of the 
northwest coast sold at an average of at least 1\ per cent less as compared with the 
prices received by us, notwithstanding the fact that the skins of the northwest coast 
this year graded a little better than usual. 

Under the terms of the sale a remittance by C. M. Lampson & Co. will be made on 
December 30. I shall leave London on the 19th, and my address for the next three 
weeks will be Hotel Kaiserhof, Bad Nauheim, Germany, 

With assurances of personal esteem and regard, believe me, 
Sincerely, 

Geo. M. Bowers. 



London, December 19, 1910. 
Hon. Charles Nagel, 

Secretary Commerce and Labor, Washington, D. C, U. S. A. 

Dear Mr. Secretary: Herewith inclosed you will find several statements for 
record in the department, one showing the number of skins sold, the prices realized 
for each lot, and the average weight of the skins; then another statement showing by 
whom purchased. I also inclose a report showing the prices received for all other 
skins sold, with last year's prices, for the purpose of comparison; also a statement 
issued by C. M. Lampson & Co., as well as two other statements, one by Phillips, 
Pollitzer & Co., and the other by Blatspiel, Staup & Haycock, the principal London 
buyers of the Alaskans. These reports will show the situation so far as London and 
the Continent are concerned. It pleases me to state that the gross proceeds from the 
sale for the 12,920 skins is £89,624 16s., an advance of £200 more than the amount given 
in my cablegram. The amounts received, as shown in this report, differ some little 
from the statement I sent you some days ago, but on the whole our Government gains 
an additional £200. 

Your cablegram of congratulations was greatly appreciated, and I feel much relieved 
after a hard year's arduous labor. I leave for Berlin to-night, and will proceed from 
there to Bad Neuheim immediately after Christmas and make a strenuous endeavor to 
recuperate, or, in other words, to recover my health. 

With the compliments of the season, believe me, 

Sincerely, Geo. M. Bowers. 

P. S. — In a personal letter to Mr. Cable I stated I would send him a list of pur- 
chasers. This is found in a catalogue which I have marked "Document 4." My 
address will be Hotel Kaiserhof, Bad Neuheim. 

That Mr. Commissioner Bowers knew better, that he had full 
knowledge of the fact that those skins had been classified by measure- 
ment in London, is given below by the sworn admission of his own 
agent, W. I. Lembkey. 

Mr. Young. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green 
skins on the islands, and then measure them in the markets in London. What is 
your purpose in weighing, and what is their purpose in measuring? 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 77 

Mr. Lembkey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within 
the weights prescribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and 
minimum weights. These weights are 5 pounds 

Mr. Young. Does that relate to the question of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds. 

Mr. Young. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose 
in measuring? 

Mr. Lembke^. They measure them, I fancy 

Mr. Young. Are they trying 'to arrive at the question of age, too? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on 
the animal. 

Mr. Young. They care nothing about the question of age there? 

Mr. Lembkey. Nothing at all. 

Mr. Young. That is all I care to ask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449.) 

* * * * * * * 

Mr. Bowers. Mr. Lembkey is not a member of the advisory board, but is a member 
of the fur-seal board. 

Mr. Elliott. We want that distinctly understood. We want to find out where he 
comes in, and where to put the responsibility. Is not Mr. Lembkey responsible for 
anything? Did he not get his Orders from you? 

Mr. Bowers. He did, under those instructions. 

Mr. Elliott. Does he not get his orders from that advisory board, through you? 
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 116-117.) 

Mr. Bowers. He gets his orders from me as approved by the Secretary. 

Mr. Elliott. And he is bound by them? 

Mr. Bowers. He is. 

Mr. Elliott. Then, Mr. Chairman, I want Mr. Bowers to explain right here why 
Mr. Lembkey, introduced by Secretary Nagel, said on February 4 last, at a hearing of 
the conservation committee of the United States, on page 10, in answer to this question: 

"The Chairman. How many did you kill last year? 

"Mr. Lembkey. We killed 12,920.' 

"Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age?" 

Mr. Bowers. Where is that? 

Mr. Elliott. I hope you will get that. I want Mr. Bowers to get these questions. 
Nothing would please me less than to appear as a prosecuter here, because I am not, 
I want to get at the facts. On page 10 the chairman of this Senate committee asked 
certain questions of Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Lembkey is introduced to that committee by 
Secretary Nagel as the responsible agent of the Department of Commerce and Labor 
to speak for him; and for you, of course. 

"The Chairman. How many did you kill last year? 

"Mr. Lembkey. We killed 12,920'. 

"Q. What was the youngest seal you killed; what age? 

"A. Two years old." 

There we have the official statement of the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
without doubt or equivocation, without any question of law or anything, given to the 
Senate committee, that they had killed none of those seals, 12,920, under 2 years of age. 
Are you ready to certify to that statement here before this committee? 

Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey's statement. 

Mr. Elliott. No; but, my dear sir, he is your agent. I want you to certify to it, 

Mr. Cable. Do you want him to certify to it, or are you asking whether he does? 

Mr. Elliott. Excuse me if I am arguing, but I want to get at the responsibility for 
this statement. If Mr. Lembkey is irresponsible, why was he brought up there? If 
he is responsible, why are you evading the responsibility? 

Mr. Bowers. I am not evading anything; I want that distinctly understood, 

Mr. Elliott. Then you certify to that statement? 

Mr. Bowers. I do not have to certify to any statement made by another man, 
That is his statement. That is the statement as it comes to the Bureau of Fisheries 
from the officials. That is an official record as it comes to me. 

We now come into the immediate relation of the United States 
Bureau of Fisheries to this fur-seal business of the Government, 
When Dr. Jordan and his associated scientists, Stejneger, Lucas, and 
Townsend finished their work of completely approving the most 
rigorous and injurious driving and close killing of the seals by the 
lessees, they then published, in 1898, this approval in their final report 
on fur-seal ^investigations ; the lessees then determined to have a 



78 PUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

continuation of such "scientific" indorsement. Prior to this the 
naturalists, generally, had secured the insertion of a clause in an 
appropriation bill as early as March 3, 1893 (27 Stat., 583), which 
reads as follows: 

The Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries is authorized and required to investigate 
under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, and when so requested report 
annually to him regarding the conditions of seal life upon the rookeries of the Pribilof 
Islands; and he is also directed to continue the inquiries relative to the life h -story 
and migrations of the fur seals frequenting the waters of Bering Sea. 

This caused the sending of several naturalists to the islands in 
1894 and 1895 on that errand. The lessees had not found any of 
them at all troublesome, and when Dr. Jordan closed his initial service 
to them in 1897 as a scientist, they resolved to have no succeeding 
naturalist get up there who, might not be as tractable. 

So, the astute and active lessee, United States Senator Elkins, in 
the full determination to have a man at the head of this Bureau of 
Fisheries on whom he could rely, secured the appointment and the 
confirmation of one George M. Bowers, as United States Commissioner 
of Fisheries, in February, 1898. 

Here was a man notoriously ignorant of every detail of this office, 
and yet selected and confirmed in spite of the law which declares 
that he "must be learned as a fish culturist," and "an educated 
scientist" — just because lessee Elkins wanted it done for this per- 
sonal reason. And that man Bowers came before the House com- 
mittee with a pitiful attempt to tell them that Elkins did not order 
his appointment and confirmation, to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. I never asked a single man in the United States to indorse me for the 
Commissionership of Fisheries. 

Mr. Townsend. If you will impart information to this committee as to how to secure 
such good positions without indorsements, it will be interesting. 

Mr. Bowers. I had the indorsements for the collectorship of Senator Elkins and 

then 

. Mr. Townsend (interposing). That is all right. Now, we will go on from that point. 
Senator Elkins, at the time he indorsed you for that office, and when he found 

Mr. Bowers (interposing). Not for that office; he did not indorse me for the col- 
lectorship at all. 

Mr. Townsend. Did he indorse you for this position of Commissioner of Fisheries? 

Mr. Bowers. I presume he did, as did the entire West Virginia delegation, as well 
as ex-Senator Faulkner, at that time a member of the Senate. 

Mr. Townsend. I have no doubt they were perfectly justified in doing so, because 
you have the reputation of being a very skillful and useful man, and there is no re- 
flection implied in this question. I am simply trying to get before the committee 
Whom your political backers were. 

Mr. Bowers. Well, Senator Elkins and I were warm friends. 

Mr. Townsend. And he was at that time a stockholder, was he not, in the company 
that had the contract for the seal killing? 

Mr. Bowers. I was not aware of that, sir, and I am not to-day. And I never heard 
that Senator Elkins held an interest in the seal contract until I was told so on the 
islands in 1906. 

Mr. McDermott. What did they say to you at that time? 

Mr. Bowers. I was told by one of the employees of the North American Commercial 
Co., when I was there with Mr. Sims, that "your Senator from West Virginia is a stock- 
holder in this company." 

Mr. Townsend. That was before the transfer was made to your department that 
you became aware of that? 

Mr. Bowers. Well, I was told that at that time. 

Mr. Townsend. Now, that is satisfactory. You took charge of the affairs of this 
contract something like 15 or 16 months before the expiration of the contract, did you 
not? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes; something like that. (Hearing No. 2, pp. 70, 71, June 9, 1911. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 79 

By getting their own man into this office, armed with that "duty" 
and authority of making "scientific" studies of that herd, and of the 
lessees' work annually, it became easy for Mr. Senator Elkins and 
Mr. D. O. Mills to control that arm of inquiry, and report. Then, 
with that "scientific" control on the one hand, with the control of 
the civil agents on the other, the lessees had nothing to concern them- 
selves about over reports that might be annually filed in the Treasury 
Department, or in the Bureau of Fisheries. 

The results that followed amply paid them for their trouble in 
getting this unfit man Bowers installed. They kept him there, too, 
in spite of protests and proof of his unfitness piled mountain high. 

The lessees also had another object in sight, and Bowers was the 
man to reach it for them. They knew that they would have great 
opposition to a renewal of their lease in 1910, so they banked upon 
Bowers in this office as being able to secure that renewal for them. 

In order that Bowers should not be hampered, they persuaded 
Theodore Roosevelt and Oscar Straus to put all of the details of this 
fur seal business into Bowers 's control by an Executive order dated 
December 28, 1908, as follows, to wit: 

December 28, 1908. 
To the Commissioner of Fisheries, the agents charged with the management of the seal 
fisheries in Alaska, and others concerned: 

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Revised Statutes of the United 
States, sections 1973 and 161, and by the organic act creating this department, ap- 
proved February 14, 1903, it is hereby ordered that, subject to the direction of the 
head of the department, the Commissioner of Fisheries shall be charged with the 
general management, supervision and control of the execution, enforcement, and 
administration of the laws relating to the fur-seal fisheries of Alaska; that the agents 
charged with the management of the seal fisheries of Alaska, together with such other 
persons in the employ of the department as may hereafter be engaged in the execution 
of the said laws, shall be subject to the immediate jurisdiction and control of the Com- 
missioner of Fisheries, and shall, in addition to the duties required of them by law, 
perforfh such other duties as he may, with the approval of the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor, prescribe; that the appropriations for "Salaries, agents at seal fisheries in 
Alaska," 1908 and 1909, "Salaries and traveling expenses of agents at seal fisheries 
in Alaska," 1908 and 1909, and "Supplies for native inhabitants, Alaska," 1908 and 
1909, shall be expended under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Fisher- 
ies, subject to the supervision of the Secretary; and that all records, papers, files, 
printed documents and other property in the department appertaining to the fur-seal 
fisheries of Alaska shall be transferred from their present custody to the custody of the 
Bureau of Fisheries. 

Oscar S. Straus, Secretary. 

The story of how United States Commissioner of Fisheries, George 
M, Bowers, used every arm of his office to secure a renewal of this 
lease for his patrons, is one of the most remarkable exhibitions, self- 
confessed, of arrogant, official malfeasance that has ever been put 
into sworn testimony; and how he failed is equally interesting. It 
is all set forth in Hearing No. 3 (pp. 147-162, July" 6, 1911, H. Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor). A brief excerpt of this amazing testi- 
mony is given below: 

Mr. Elliott. And I want Mr. Bowers to pay some attention to this, because this 
is important, at least some good lawyers have told me that it is very important to 
him — 

"Being an official letter covering a 'memorandum ' addressed to George M. Bowers, 
commissioner, urging him to take steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon fur-seal 
resolutions introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Joseph M. Dixon. 
(S. Res. 90, 91, 92.) 



80 PUK-SEAL HEED OE ALASKA. 

"December 7, 1909. This letter from the 'bureau,' dated December 16, 1909, and 
signed by Barton W. Everman, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to 
'educate' the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the 'bureau's idea of 
renewing the lease,' as follows: 

"Exhibit No. 6. 

"Department oe Commerce and Labor, 

"Bureau of Fisheries, 
" Washington, December 16, 1909. 
"The Commissioner: 

"The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Camp Fire Club, of 
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation 
designed to prevent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on 
the islands for 10 years except for natives' food, and to secure the opening of negotia- 
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result 
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon, 
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two 
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904. 

"As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and 
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent 
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having 
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members 
of the Camp Fire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object of correctly 
informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing 
its cooperation to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau 2 

"The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated. 

"Barton W. Evermann. 

"Exhibit No. 7. Being the official letter of 'George M. Bowers, commissioner,' to 
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three 
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease and giving the reasons of the writers for 
such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, president N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January 
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for 'fur seal advisory board,' dated January 31, 1910. 
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as follows: 

X. When Cleveland replaced Harrison, March 4, 1893, it became 
necessary to put a Democrat in the place of chief special agent in 
charge of the seal islands, Joseph Stanley- Brown. 

So Joseph B. Crowley was appointed chief; First Assistant Agent 
Murray, Republican, was dropped for James Judge, a Democrat; but 
the lessees were careful of their man, Murray. They had him made 
a salmon fishing inspector for Alaska, without a moment's loss of 
time. 

Then when McKinley came in, March 4, 1897, it was in turn neces- 
sary to drop Crowley, Democrat, and back came the subservient 
Murray to the office of chief special agent. 

Murray died in Colorado October, 1898, and was succeeded by 
John M. Morton, who was as subservient in turn as Murray had been. 
Morton died on St. Pauls Island July, 1900, and he was succeeded by 
one W. J. Lembkey, as chief, who has been equally subservient to the 

1 Committee -on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, 

House op Representatives, 
Friday, June 9, 1911. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. 

testimony or me. george m. bowers, commissioner or fisheries. 

Mr. Bowers. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under governmental supervision. 

Mr. Townsend. You will be questioned about that later. After the first suggestion of this bill you know 
of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legislation? 

Mr. Bowers. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legislation. 

Mr. Townsend. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it would surprise you? 

Mr. Bowers. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned it would the Bureau 
of Fisheries and the department. (Investigation of fur-seal industry of Alaska, p. 73.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 81 

seal contractors, and has been steadily in office as such ever since, up 
to August 1, 1913. We will later have to consider Lembkey again. 

But this selection and appointment of these Government agents by 
the lessees is not all that those contractors have had to do in the 
premises; it was not enough; so they have had that particular "back- 
room" officialism in the Treasury Department, which is the direct and 
immediate annex to the .Secretary's office; also in their control and 
hire, because it was necessary that the reports and work of these res- 
ident seal-island agents be insured of a friendly interpretation and 
official reception in the United States Treasury Department, so that 
whenever any "impertinent" or pertinent questions were asked of the 
Secretary as to the conduct of the lessees or the public business on 
the islands, either by citizens or by Congress, no "official" blunder as 
to a proper answer would be made; it has been managed as follows; 

A standing order of the department put this seal island business, 
reports, etc., all in the aare of the "chief special agent in charge of 
the islands"; the then "assistant agents" were all ordered to report 
to him : he then used his discretion as to how much or how little of 
these reports he was to use or forward to the department; then, when 
this report of the chief special agent in charge of the seal islands was 
sent to the Treasury Department it was received and filed in the 
"office of the chief special supervising agent"; to this man the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury looked for all the official information and 
advice he had at his command; and from this man the Secretary 
always received the draft of that part of his annual report to Congress 
which related to the seal islands of Alaska. 

Therefore, the importance to the lessees of having such a man in 
their control is easy to understand ; they got him. When Special Agent 
Elliott came down from his investigation into the condition of affairs 
on the islands, September 7, 1890, he found that a man named A. K. 
Tingle was this "chief supervising special agent." He was a cousin 
of George R. Tingle, the superintendent of the lessees, and "general 
manager" on the islands. Of course Elliott found him "deeply 
interested," but, in favor of the public interests ? Not at all. 

Then when Cleveland came in, a "Democrat" was put in Tingle's 
place, and he (Tingle) went into the hire of the Sugar Trust. When 
Cleveland went out, of course, a "Republican" had to come back 
into this "office" of "chief supervising special agent," and one W. S. 
Chance, a docile tool of the lessees, took that place. Elliott calls him 
a "tool," with all of the proof of that fact in his hands. 

With this official machinery in their hands, and in complete control 
of it, the lessees have actually written every annual report of the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury to Congress on the condition of this fur-seal 
herd, and their own conduct, since 1890, up to the hour that this 
business went to the Department of Commerce and Labor, July 1, 
1903. 

XT. We pass now from the "divided" control of the lessees to the 
single control of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. Do we find any 
improvement? No, if anything, it became quite as bad; fully as 
much so. 

The moment the renewal of the lease was defeated, March, 1910, 
and the lessees put out of business, these scientists of the Bureau of 
Fisheries resolved to hava the sealskin business continued just the 

21588—13 6 



82 FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

same, only they would do it themselves. The work of slaughtering 
seals in 1910 was, therefore, taken up and pushed as hard, and close 
by them on the islands, as it had been by the greedy lessees in 1909. 

Vigorous protests were made Secretary Nagel by good citizens, but 
without the least avail. He had determined to continue the "benevo- 
lent'' killing by the lessees, so as to appear "regular" in his indorse- 
ment of that injurious work when backing those butchers during the 
lease. He stimulated Dr. Jordan and his old "scientific" authorities 
who had shielded that illegal work of the lessees since 1896 to again 
come forward and deny this improper killing and vouch for its con- 
tinuation in 1910 and 1911, under United States Commissioner 
Bowers' s and Mr.Lembkey's direction, as being done wholly right in 
every respect. 

The proclamations by Jordan and his subordinate scientists, were 
used by Secretary Nagel as his righteous, sensible warrant for killing 
"small" seals; that "it was necessary for the good of the herd," etc. 

This stirred up an investigation into that killing, by order of Con- 
gress in May, 1911, and the following salient evidence of an organ- 
ized attempt to deceive the Committee on Expenditures in the De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor by the scientists associated with 
the bureau, and Dr. Jordan's commission, known as the "advisory 
board," was quickly exhibited. 

This attempt to deceive the committee was made with reference 
to- 
First. The regulations of the department governing the taking of 
seals and their skins. 

Second. The classification of these skins when taken. 

Third. The behavior of breeding fur-seal bulls. 

1. With regard to the law and regulations which governed the 
taking of fur seals on the islands, the Bureau of Fisheries prepared 
an elaborate statement, and presented it under oath to the com- 
mittee, and in that statement made the following distinct, and spe- 
cific false, and improper denial of the "Carlisle rules" issued May 14, 
1896, and quoted above under Section VI, to wit: 

Committee on Expenditures in the 
■ Department of Commerce and Labor, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday, April 19, 1912. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Representatives McDermott, Young, McGuire, and Patton. 
Testimony of Barton W. Evermann. 
The witness was sworn by the chairman. 
The Chairman. Doctor, you may state your official position. 

Dr. Evermann. My official position is assistant in charge of the Alaska fisheries 
service, in the Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce and Labor. 

The Chairman. Now, if you desire, you may proceed to submit whatever facts you 
have for the consideration of the committee. 
Dr. Evermann. * * * 

2. The second charge is that at least 128,478 yearling male seals were killed by the 
lessee from 1890 to 1909, both inclusive, contrary to law and the regulations. 

In answer to this charge it should be sufficient to say that the law has never made 
it illegal to kill yearling male seals; nor has it ever been contrary to the regulations 
to kill yearling male seals, except in the seasons of 1904 and 1905, as is shown by the 
regulations for the various years to which I have called your attention. Therefore, 
even if 128,478 yearling male seals have been killed since 1899 (which is not admitted) 
they could not have been killed illegally, because there was no law against killing 
yearling male seals, and there has been no regulation against killing yearling male 
seals, except in 1904 to 1909. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 83 

The fact that the "Carlisle rules" prohibiting the killing of year- 
lings in distinct terms, were issued May 14, 1896, and duly pub- 
lished and recorded on the Seal Islands is here vainly denied, and 
concealed from the committee in a carefully written statement pre- 
pared by the Bureau of Fisheries, and given to it under oath; and, 
the fact that those orders of Secretary Carlisle have never been 
amended or revised until the "Hitchcock rules" of 1904 were ordered, 
is also concealed from the committee by that false statement. 

2. With regard to the classification of these fur-seal skins when 
taken on the islands, and then shipped to London for sale, there, 
the Bureau of Fisheries made a series of statements when first before 
the committee which were found later to be entirely false, and which 
said Fisheries Bureau had to admit were such. 

When the question was first directly put to George M. Bowers, 
United States Commissioner of Fisheries, as to how these skins taken 
under his orders on the Seal Islands, were classified, so as to show 
their sizes and ages in London, he said (Hearing No. 3, p. 128, June 
28, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept, Com. and Labor): 

Mr. Townsend. I will examine you now as to the killing of seals after the expira- 
tion of this lease and when the killing was made, as it has been called here by the 
Government. The report shows that in the year 1910, 12,920 seals were killed, and 
the evidence before the committee is that of those 8,000 were yearlings. 

Mr. Bowers. Well, that evidence is false. 

Mr. Townsend. That is your answer to that, is it? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. Here are the weights on the basis, you understand, that a 
4^-pound skin is a yearling. There are the weights for 1909 — the island weights and 
the London weights. I think probably you will find one skin weighing less than \\ 
pounds. 

C. M. Lampson & Co., London, 19th Nov., 1910. 

Assortment of Alaska sailed fur sealskins for account of United States Government, 
Department of Commerce and Labor. 

[New York, Ck. 1/228.] 

Lbs. Ozs. 

78 smalls 7 15 

713 large pups 7 2 

3.032 middling pups 6 7 

4^899 small pups 5 12 

1,266 ex. small pups 5 5 

11 ex. ex. small pups 4 10 

33 smalls, low 7 11 

135 large pups, low 6 9 

498 middling pups, low 6 1 

501 small pups, low -. 5 9 

88 ex. small pups, low 5 

10 small, cut 7 2 

71 large pups, cut 6 13 

238 middling pups, cut 6 2 

421 small pups, cut 5 6 

81 ex. small pups, cut 4 15 

6 small, rubbed 7 

55 large pups, rubbed 6 14 

1 95 middling pups, rubbed 6 6 

290 small pups, rubbed 5 11 

75 ex. small pups, rubbed 5 3 

36 faulty. 

12,732 average based "ii December, 1909. prices 144/. 



84 FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

5 small. 
21 large pups. 
48 middling pups. 
94 small pups. 
18 ex. small pups. 
2 faulty. 



188 average based on December, 1909, prices 120/. 



12,920 

Subject to recount. 

(Hearing No. 6, p. 291, July 27, 1911, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. 
and Labor.) 

Mr. Patton. You mean it is a report that is sworn to by the people who do the sell- 
ing in London? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classification of the London merchants who sell the 
skins for the United States Government. 

Mr. Patton. And they pay on that weight? 

Mr. Bowers. They sell on those weights. Their classification is made on those 
weights. 

Mr. Elliott. Right there I want to interpose the statement that they do not weigh 
those skins to classify them. They measure them. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 374-375.) 

Mr. Lembkey. These skins which were sent to London, daring the years 1909 and 
1910, were weighed by the factors after their arrival in London and the weights found 
to correspond with those taken on the island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., is essen- 
tially a disinterested person, being concerned not the least with the question of weights 
or regulations, but wholly with the sale of the skins and tne payments therefor, their 
verification of these weights may be taken as conclusive of their accuracy. 

So far, therefore, as concerns compliance with the regulations and the law in the kill- 
ing of male seals, no malfeasance can be proven, because not only the records of the de- 
partment but the weights of the same skins in London, taken by an independent and 
responsible body of experts, prove that the limits of weight laid down by the instruc- 
tions of the department have been complied with as closely as it is possible for human 
agency to do so. The weights of skins taken on the islands show this, and further- 
more these weights have been verified in London by an independent and responsible 
body of men. 

Here is the man who has been placed in full charge of this public 
business, the commissioner himself, under oath, actually swearing to 
a deliberate falsehood of his own invention. He swears that these 
skins, which have been taken under his orders, are sold in London 
by weight. What was this man's object in so testifying? x 

To conceal the fraud of taking yearling sealskins on the islands 
which weigh only 4-| pounds each, clean skinned, as the work was 
done by different men and at different times, this weight was raised 
by blubber to 5, 5^, 6, 6^, 7, and 8 pounds. 

The committee has under its control a series of 400 sealskins taken 
in 1913 just as these skins were taken and sold in 1910. Their 

1 That Mr. Bowers had full knowledge of the fact that he was deceiving the committee is given by his own 
associate and subordinate, most unwillingly, to the committee, and goes completely to declare the proof 
of Mr. Bowers's possession of guilty knowledge and use of it to deceive. Chief Special Agent Lembkey 
swears: 

Mr. Young. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green skins on the islands and 
then measure them in the markets in London. What is your purpose in weighing, and what is their pur- 
pose in measuring . 

Mr. Lembkey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within the weights pre- 
scribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and minimum weights. Those weights 
are 5 pounds 

Mr. Young. Does that relate to the question of age. 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds. 

Mr. Young. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in measuring. 

Mr. Lembkey. They measure them, I fancy 

Mr. Young. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too . 

Mr. Lembkey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the animal. 

Mr. Young. They care nothing about the question of age there . 

Mr. Lembkey. Nothing at all. 

Mr. Young. That is all I care to ask. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 448, 449, Apr. 13, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 85 

exhibition declares every detail of that fraudulent classification by 
weight which the Bureau of Fisheries and the lessees managed so as 
to falsify the returns of their illegal killing on the islands annually 
to the Government. 

The scientists of the Bureau of Fisheries, who have aided Mr. 
Bowers in this false statement as to classification, and whom he cites 
to the committee as his At authority " for making it in the following 
words, are (Hearing No. 2, p. Ill, Ho. Cora. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Lab, r) 

Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting the best talent I could; I expected probable 
criticism. 

Mr. Townsend. I am not criticizing you now. 

Mr. Bowers. I endeavored to get the best talent it was possible to get and to act 
upon their advice in this fur-seal matter. 

Mr. Cable. Give the names of the members of the advisory board. 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal 
service, are as follows (Hearing No. 2, pp. 109-110): 

"fur-seal board, bureau of fisheries. 

"In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered 
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following: 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries 
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the 
fur-seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and 
Bering Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. 

"Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, who has been in immediate charge of the seal islands for 
many years: appointed March 22, 1899. 

"Mr. James Judge, who, as assistant agent, fur-seal service, has spent many years on 
the islands; appointed April 30, 1894. 

"Mr. A. B. Alexander, Chief of the Division of Statistics and Methods of the Fish- 
eries, who, as fishery expert on the steamer Albatross, visited the seal islands often, 
and who has made a more careful study of pelagic sealing than any other man. 

"Mr. M. C. Marsh, pathologist of the Bureau of Fisheries, who spent the season of 
190(5 on the seal islands making a study of the seal herd. 

"The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following: 

"Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of 
the International Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance 
of the treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the 
most comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published 
on all matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most 
distinguished and best-known naturalist in the world. 

"Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum, 
for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the Fur Seal Commis- 
sions of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied all the fur-seal 
rookeries of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal islands is the 
most critical and thoughtful that has been written. 

"Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently chief of the Biological Survey, member of the 
Fur Seal Commission of 1890, and the greatest living authority on mammals. 

"Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum of Natural History, 
member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most 
discerning, and best-known naturalists. 

"Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years 
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Townsend 
made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic sealing. 

"Hon. Edwin W. Sims, United States attorney for the northern district of Illinois 
in 1906, when Solicitor for the Department of Commerce and Labor spent the season 
on the seal islands, where he made a very careful study of the conditions on the 
islands. 

"Hon. Frank H. Hitchcock. Postmaster General, who, when chief clerk of the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, had charge of the administration of the seal 
service. 



86 FUB-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

" In addition to the above the department had the advice of — 
"Dr. F. W. True, Assistant Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, who spent the 
season of 1895 on the seal islands as a special commissioner for the Government to study 
the fur seal. Dr. True is one of the most distinguished mammal ogists, and has given 
special attention to marine mammals. 

"Mr. George A. Clark, secretary of Stanford University, who, as secretary of the Fur 
Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, spent many months on the seal islands, when there 
was made, under his immediate supervision, the most careful census of the fur-seal 
herd that has ever been made. Mr. Clark was again on the seal islands during the 
entire season of 1909, where he was sent by the Secretary of Commerce and Labor as 
an expert to study the seal herd during the last year of the North American Co.'s 
lease." 

Here is an imposing list of names who are thus cited by Mr. Com- 
missioner Bowers as being his "advisers" and as the men who have 
enabled him to make that false declaration of classification by weights 
in London (by his "loaded" green-skin weights on the islands). 
What did these men do when summoned and put under oath by the 
committee and questioned as to this charge made against Commis- 
sioner Bowers of killing yearling seals in violation of the rules of the 
department — did they deny the charge? No. They all swore that 
they did' not know anything about it; that they did not know how 
to describe the length or weight of a yearling sealskin. Witness the 
following: 

I. Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 679-680, Hearing No. 11, House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, May 4, 1912): 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, do you want to ask him any questions? 

Mr. Elliott. I have only a few questions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is the 
length of a yearling fur seal of the Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. I could not tell you. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you ever measured one of the Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. No. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know anything about the length of a skin of a yearling 
seal as taken from the body? 

Dr. Stejneger. Of a yearling seal? I do not know; I have never seen a yearling 
seal killed on the American islands. 

******* 

Mr. Elliott. Were you in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the killing 
of 12,920 seals on the seal islands in 1910? 

Dr. Stejneger. Do you mean in personal special consultation with Mr. Bowers? 

Mr. Elliott. Well, as a member of the board do you remember any consultation 
with him about issuing those orders? 

Dr. Stejneger. No; I do not remember. 

II. Dr. C. Hartt Merriam, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor (p. 692, Hearing No. 11): 

The Chairman. 'Well, how long have you been on the advisory board? 

Dr. Merriam. Since the beginning. I do not remember the date; but I have been 
absent from the city during a number of ihe sittings of that committee, as I am 
engaged in field work in the West at least half of every year, and therefore have not 
been in Washington at the time most of these meetings were held. 

The Chairman. Were you at the meeting of the advisory board that the previous 
witness referred to in his testimony? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember any such meeting. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the board now? 

Dr. Merriam. Yes. 

On page 99, Hearing No. 11: 

Mr. Elliott. Doctor, while you were on the island did you ascertain the length 
and weight of a yearling seal? 

Dr. Merriam. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know anything about the length and the weight of a yearling 
sealskin? 

Dr. Merriam. Nothing. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 87 

Mr. Elliott. One question more . I understood you to say that you had not been 
in consultation with Mr. Bowers when he issued his orders for killing 13,000 seals in 
1910? 

Dr. Meukiam. 1 do not think I was present at any conference when that matter 
was up. 

III. Dr. Barton W. Evermann, member of Fur-Seal Board, Alaska Seal Fish- 
eries, Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 022, Hearing No. 10): 

Mr. Elliott. I know; I have not disputed that, bur 1 want to find what you did. 
on the island. You didn't do anything, you say. 

Dr. Evermann. I didn't say that. 

Mr. Elliott. You didn't weigh or measure a seal on the islands, did you? 

Dr. Evermann. My recollection is that I did not. 

On pages 639, 040, Hearing No. 10: 

Dr. Evermann. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing- 
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them? 

Mr. Elliott. No; he hasn't said so anywhere. Now, Mr. Lembkey said on page- 
442 that he had measured a yearling seal — three of them. He says here [reading]: 

"Mr. Lembkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be, from the- 
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 39J inches in one instance and 39£ inches in. 
another 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

"Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another. I measuied only three. 
Mr. Elliott. Yes." 

Do you dispute those measurements? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not dispute them. 

On page 639, Hearing No. 10: 

Mr. Elliott. Now, you can find exactly what was in Mr. Lembkey 's mind by turn- 
ing to page 428, at the bottom of the page [reading]: 

"'The Chairman. What is your answer? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I certified that they were all over 2 years with the exception of 
the negligible few that were taken through accident. 

"Mr. Elliott. In the spring of 1910 you took 12,920 seals. You killed them there 
under your directions, and you took the skins. 

•"The Chairman. Let him answer the question. 

"Mr. Lembkey. Is that a question or a statement? He is making a statement, as 
I understand it. 

"The Chairman Answer the question. 

"Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

"The Chairman. That settles it. 

"Mr. Elliott. Out of the 12,920 skins which you took through the season of 1910. 
how many of them exceeded in length 34 inches? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I do not know." 

Then he tells the committee on page 434 that 7,733 of them, according to this London 
certificate, are the skins of "small pups" and "extra small pups." And then he re- 
news that statement on page 441 and quoted Mr. Fraser as his authority. 

Dr. Evermann. So far as I know, Mr. Lembkey has not denied, and I can say I 
have not denied, the classifications as given by Lampsons.t If hey say that there are 
so many extra small pups and so many small pups, I presume that classification is 
correct. I am also convinced that the statement which Lampson & Co. gave me, 
that a skin 35 inches long which they certified as an extra small pup is an extra small 
pup. and that the skin 37J inches long which Lampson & Co. certified to the Bureau 
of Fisheries as being a small pup is a small pup skin. 

Mr. Elliott. Were they salted skins? 

Dr. Evermann. Those were dressed skins. 

Mr. Elliott. They were "doped" and dressed and fixed up. They were not these 
skins, salted skins. 

Mr. McGuire. What do you mean by "doped and dressed?" 

Mr. Elliott. They are "stretched" and "doped" when they are dressed. The 
dressers "dope" them with soap and sugar, and grease and all sorts of things; pull 
and tread them backward and forward and stretch them into all sorts of shapes. That 
is what they call "doping." 

V. Dr. Charles H. Townsend, member of Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor (pp. 736, 737, Hearing No. 12): 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Is there any way to determine the age of a seal from an exam- 
ination of the skin after it is taken off the body? 

Dr. Townsend. Oh, yes. I think a person handling a considerable number of 
them would be able to throw out the different ages. 



88 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. There seems to have been two ways of determining the age of 
a seal, one is by the measurement of the skin and the other by the weight. You are 
familiar, I suppose, with both methods? 

Dr. Townsend. Only from hearsay. I do not know that I ever measured one or 
ever weighed one. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You have no practical information on that subject? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no practical information on that subject. I do not remem- 
ber that that matter was ever in my instructions at any time. I do not remember 
that I ever went into it. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. So far as your information goes, which do you regard as the 
more reliable way of determining the age of a seal, by measurement or by weight? 

Dr. Townsend. I can not say. I have not gone into that subject. 

On page 801, Hearing No. 13: 

******* 

The Chairman. It has been suggested that I ask a few questions as to your bio- 
logical knowledge, and, therefore, I proceed along that line. What have you pub- 
lished officially as to the size and weight of fur-seal skins as taken on the seal islands 
of Alaska? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not remember to have published anything on that point. 

The Chairman. What do you know of the composition of the catch of 12,920 fur- 
seal skins taken by orders of Hon. Charles Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
and Mr. George M. Bowers, United States Fish Commissioner, during the season of 
1910 on the Pribilof Islands? 

Dr. Townsend. I am not posted on the composition of that catch. 

Hearing No. 14, pages 914-919, as summed up below: 

IV. Dr. David Starr Jordan, president Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, etc., 
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 580, Hearing No. 10): 

Mr. Elliott. Are you quoting Dr. Jordan? 

Dr. Evermann. I am quoting some things that Dr. Jordan has said. 

Mr. Elliott. Is Dr. Jordan a man of truth? 

The Chairman. You are quoting from Dr. Jordan? 

Mr. Elliott. I want to find if Dr. Jordan is a man of truth? 

The Chairman. That is not for the witness to determine. 

Mr. Elliott. He is assailing me in that matter and quoting Dr. Jordan. 

The Chairman. The witness can not say whether he is telling the truth or whether 
he is not. 

Mr. Elliott. I would like to have it go in the record whether he considers Dr. Jordan 
a man of truth. 

The Chairman. The witness will proceed. 

(And Dr. Evermann proceeds without being able to answer Elliott.) 

VI. Dr. Frederic Augustus Lucas, member Advisory Board Fur-Seal Service, 
Department of Commerce and Labor (p. 726, Hearing No. 12): 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; I find no fault with that record, either. It is exactly as I 
published it nearly 40 years before. Now, Dr. Lucas, when you take the skin off that 
yearling seal and salt it down, how long is it? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have never measured a skin after salting. 

Mr. Elliott. You never measured it before salting, did you? 

Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin before salting. 

Mr. Elliott. Neither before nor after? Then how do you know that in the killing 
up there they are not killing yearling seals? 

Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the skins. 

Mr. Elliott. Are you acquainted with the tables of salted weights published by one 
of your associates, of 275 skins, which give a complete denial to your statement? 

Dr. Lucas. I am not. 

Mr. Elliott. You have never seen the table of Mr. Judge? 

Dr. Lucas. I presume I have seen the table, but I never noticed it. 

Mr. Elliott. Two hundred and seventy-five salted skins which he weighed shows 
that a salted skin 33 inches long will weigh as much as a green skin 37-J inches long. 
Does that agree with your statement? 

Mr. McGuire. Doctor, right there, you say sometimes 

Dr. Lucas. That is equivalent 

Mr. Elliott. The table states it; he (Mr. Judge) says these sizes of those skins are 
not fixed by weight. 

Dr. Lucas. May I make a statement? In all these sales of skins the skins are ad- 
vertised by weight and not by size. 

Mr. Elliott. Are they advertised by weight? Find an advertisement by weight in 
the Lampson catalogues and you will find something I have never been able to find. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 89 

Finally one man associated with these experts of Secretary Nagel's 
appointment, W. I. Lembkey, appeared. He did know what a year- 
ling seal skin was, and after a determined attempt to deny that he 
did, the following admission was made by Mm under cross-examina- 
tion, to wit (Hearing No. 9, Apr. 13, 1912): . 

On page 443: 

"Mr. Elliott. How much can yon say is left on a yearling after you have taken 
the skin off? 

"The Chairman. How much skin is left after you have taken it off? 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain 
amount is left on. 

"Mr. Lembkey. I stated about 3 inches. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long. 

"Mr. Lembkey. No; if it was 39£ inches long it would leave it 36£ inches. That 
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 39£ inches 
long. Three inches off that would leave 36 \ inches."- 

In this distinct affirmation and statement, Mr. Lembkey tells the committee that a 
"yearling" fur-seal skin of hisown identification and measurement is 36£ inches long. 
It then became, in order to understand what the lengths of those 12,920 fur-seal skins 
were, which he took during the season of 1910 on the Pribilof Islands, and then certified 
them into the record of his work as being — all of them — "taken from male seals not 
under 2 years of age." (See testimony Apr. 13, 1912, pp. 428, 429, Hearing No. 9). 

With the exhibition as above, of that complete ignorance of the 
"scientists," we come to the testimony of the one man who directed 
and did the killing, and who does know, to wit: (Hearing No. 14, p. 
905; July 25, 1912; Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Laboi\) 

Mr. Lembkey having thus identified "7,733" of his 12.920 skins as "small pups" 
and "extra small pups," the committee then examined him as to the lengths of those 
"small pup" and "extra small pup" skins; he then testified as follows, page 441, 
Hearing No. 9: 

"Mr. Elliott. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given 
here already. You have given in a statement here that 8.000 of them were "small" 
and "extra small." 

"Mr. Lembkey. 7,700. 

"Mr. Elliott. 7,700? 

"Mr. Lembkey, 7,733 were small and extra small pups. 

"Mr. Elliott. Mr. Fraser tells us that those seals, none of them measured more 
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The committee can see what Mr. Fiaser states. Mr. Fraser states 
that small pups measured 33J inches in length." 

The Chairman. What would that indicate as to age? 

Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that 

"Mr. Elliott. From there [indicating] to there [indicating] on that diagram 

"Mr. Lembkey. 33| inches in length, and extra small pups measured 30 inches 
in length. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then you have some extra small pups there which make? it s.000? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Only 11 of those. 

"Mr. Elliott. It does not amount to anything. 

"Mi. Lembkey. It just makes your 8,000 about 300 more than the actual number. 

"Mr. Elliott. That is the reason I used those round numbers. It does not amount 
to anything one way or the other. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The actual number is 300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott." 

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own summary and official record of the meas- 
urements of "7,733 fur seal skins," which he took during the season of 1910 on the 
Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that not one of them exceeds in length 34 inches. 
That fact determines them — all of them — to have been the skins taken from yearling 
seals 

Mr. Madden. Let me ask you a question. According to Mr. Lembkey's testimony 
read by you, he testified that the length of a yearling would be 39J inches, and when 
it was skinned the skin itself would be 36£ inches. Does it always follow that a year- 
ling seal measures just the same or within an inch or two of the same length? 



90 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Mr. Elliott. I think the range is about 3 to 4 inches; a small yearling skin goes 
30 inches, a good average yearling skin 34 inches, and a "long" yearling 36 inches. 
There are three grades. 

Mr. Madden. All seals are not of the same size? 

Mr. Elliott. No; but there is the general average, and you can very easily keep 
within the limit. 

3. As a warrant for the urgent need of killing annually on the 
islands, practically all of the young male seals that could be secured, 
the Bureau of Fisheries issued statements to the press, and made a 
sworn statement as follows to the committee, April 20, 1913 (Hearing- 
No. 10, p. 521, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor): 

6. If the surplus males are not killed, they not only become valueless for their skins, 
but they grow up into bulls not needed for breeding purposes, but which nevertheless 
pass on to the rookeries, where they do great damage to the breeding herd by fighting 
among themselves for possession of the cows, often tearing the cows to pieces, so injuring 
them that many of their pups are still-born, trampling the helpless pups to death, 
exhausting their own vitality and virility, and rendering themselves less potent than 
they would be without such useless struggle — in short, causing infinite trouble and 
injury to the rookeries without a single compensating advantage. 

That this statement was absolutely without foundation in fact, 
that it was deliberately put up to the committee to deceive, and so 
warrant this excessive and illegal killing on the islands since 1890, 
to date of its making, as above, has been made a matter of repeated 
record in the hearings held from May 31, 1911, to July 31, 1912. 

The spectacle of 22 "distinguished scientists" being invoked by 
the Bureau of Fisheries to sustain that imtruthful statement, when 
each and every one of those "authorities" have never given out a 
word touching it, in all of their writing and talking, that even faintly 
asserts the same. 

Nothing of the kind has ever been witnessed on the breeding 
rookeries by any competent authority, and nothing of the kind ever 
will be, since it is not the habit of these animals to ' ' tear the cows to 
pieces," and "trample the helpless pups to death." 

All of this fighting between the bulls takes place, and is over prac- 
tically, every season, long before the cows arrive; it was accurately 
observed and published by Elliot 40 years ago. (See Mono. Seal 
Islands, 1874-1882.) 

The foregoing briefed selections from the sworn testimony cited, 
declares that a combination has existed between the officials of the 
Seal Islands and the lessees' agents from 1891 to 1909, which was con- 
tinued in "Washington between said contractors and the Bureau of 
Fisheries to deceive the Departments of the Treasury and Commerce 
and the House committee. 

It declares the fact that this officialism and the lessees have not 
succeeded in deceiving the committee, and the committee is fully 
warranted in asking the House to approve its findings of fact and 
recommendations as set forth in its report, No. 1425, on Jan. 31, 1913. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 91 

DR. DAVID STARR JORDAN AND HIS ASSOCIATE "SCIENTISTS" STEJ- 
NEGER, LUCAS, TOWNSEND, AND EVERMANN CONSPIRE WITH THE 
LESSEES (LIEBES, ELKINS, AND MILLS) TO CONCEAL THE FACT THAT 
THIS KILLING ON THE ISLANDS WAS RAPIDLY DESTROYING THE 
FUR-SEAL HERDS THEREON, AS SAID LESSEES WERE PROSECUTING 
THAT SLAUGHTER, 1896-1910, INCLUSIVE. 

Dr. Jordan deliberately falsifies the Russian recr rds and the rec- 
ords ( f the slaughter by the lessees, 1896-97, to shield those public 
enemies and enable them to continue their illegal and ruinous wcrk. 
(Hearing No. 2, pp. 65, 66, June 8, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dcpt. 
Com. & Labor.) 

Mr. ElAott. Way back as far as 1826 the Russians themselves recognized the fact 
that they were culling the herds too closely — that they were ruining the business by 
the land killing of all the choice males; they knew that they alone on the islands were 
to blame, because no such thing as hunting fur seals in the water by white men then 
was dreamed of, much less done. 

In December, 1820, Gen. Yanovsky, the Imperial Russian agent, sent over to Sitka 
from St. Petersburg in 1818 to examine into the question of that decline of the fur- 
seal catch, then wrote to his Government that "so severe is this practice of" culling 
the best males for slaughter, "that if any of the young breeders are not killed by 
autumn, they were sure to be killed by the following spring," and urged the reforma- 
tion of this work then on the islands. 

Here is this evil of overdriving and culling the herd presented and defined 50 years 
before I saw it and nearly 70 years before Jordan denies its existence in 1898. Think 
of it. We have sent two investigating commissions since 1890 up to our ruined fur- 
seal preserves on the PriBilof Islands, one in 1891 and the other in 1896-97, and yet 
in spite of this plain Russian record and my detailed and unanswerable indictment 
of that particular abuse in 1890, these commissioners blindly and stupidly deny it. 
They attempt to set aside the Russian record by saying that the Russians then killed 
females as well as males and drove them up to the shambles in equal numbers. 

The Russians did nothing of the sort. They began the season early in June by 
driving from the hauling grounds precisely as we do to-day and continued so to drive 
all through the rest of the season ; they never went upon the rookeries and drove off 
the females; they never have done so since 1799. How then did the females get 
into their drives? 

The females fell into these drives of the Russians because that work was protracted 
through the whole season, from June 1 to December 1. In this way the drivers 
picked up many cows after August 1 to 10 to the end of November following, since 
some of these animals during that period leave their places on the breeding grounds 
and scatter out over large sections of the adjacent hauling grounds, so as to get mixed 
in here and there with the young males. Thus the Russians in driving across the 
flanks of the breeding grounds, going from the hauling grounds, during every August, 
September, October, and November, would sweep up into their drives a certain pro- 
portion of female seals which are then scattered out from the rookery organization and 
are ranging at will over those sections of the hauling grounds driven from. What that 
proportion of this female life so driven was, in Russian time, no man to-day can pre- 
cisely determine. From the best analysis I can make of it I should say that the 
Russian female catch in their drives never exceeded 30 per cent of the total number 
driven at any time, and such times were rare, and that it ranged as low as 5 per cent 
of female life up to the end of August annually. 

Now, what does Jordan say to-day about this work which the Russians condemned 
70 years ago and I in 1890? 

"As land killing has always been confined to the males, and as its operations are 
to-day what they have been since the herd came into the American control, except in 
so far as they have been improved, this means that land killing is not and has not 
been a factor in the decline of the herd." 

I went up in 1890 prejudiced against the pelagic sealer. I am yet; but prejudice 
can not make answer to the following facts: 

In 1890 I found in the place of 3,193,670 breeding fur seals and their young, only 
959,455. 

In the place of a round million of nonbreeding young male seals on the hauling 
grounds in 1872-1874, I found a scant 100,000. 



92 FUK-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

It is and was easy to account for the heavy shrinkage of life on the rookeries, for the 
pelagic sealer has been hard at work on the female life since 1885-86; he has killed 
in the water 75 to 80 females to every 20 males, and this proportion in killing ought to 
be shown on the breeding grounds. It was. 

But what about that infinitely greater loss among the young males on the hauling 
grounds? If the pelagic sealer was all to blame (as Jordan says he is) for this ruin of 
the herd, why should this class of seals of which he kills the fewest be the one class 
most fearfully decimated. 

I began on the ground in 1890 to review every season's work on the islands since 
1874. I found that in 1883 the supply of surplus male seals had so dwindled on the 
islands that the driving was then extended to all of the hauling fields ; that extension 
declared increased difficulty in getting the supply long before the pelagic sealer had 
entered Bering Sea or had really begun destructive work in the North Pacific Ocean. 

If the pelagic sealer had not caused this trouble on the islands in 1883-1887, of get- 
ting the full supply of killable young male seals, what had? An epidemic or disease? 
No, not a trace of it. Then there remained but two reasonable answers; either too 
many seals were annually killed by the lessees, or the method of driving to cull the 
herds so driven was at fault. 

The effect of killing annually 100,000 young male seals of a single high grade upon 
the whole herd as begun in 1870 was an experiment. It went far beyond the Russian 
limit and method, for it added a much greater danger. It called for the systematic 
culling out of all the seals driven under 3 years of age and over 4 years. 

This act of steadily killing every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old male that comes 
up annually in the drives began in a few years to create a serious interference with that 
law of natural selection in the life of the herd which enables the fur seal to be so 
dominant a pinniped. This interference is at once seen by a thoughtful naturalist 
when the continued culling out of the very finest young male seals from the herd 
takes place annually. How long would any stock breeder keep up the standard of 
his herd in this State if he annually slaughtered all of the veiy finest young males 
that were born into it or brought into it? 

Yet Dr. Jordan comes forward in his final report with tills plain confession of his 
inability to grasp a well-established truth in regard to the life of wild animals. Listen 
to him (Chap. IX, p. 128): 

"The whole matter (theory of overdriving) is too absurd for serious consideration, 
and might be passed by with the silent contempt which it deserves were it not for 
the fact that it was accepted by Lhe British commissioners in 1891 and made the 
chief foundation of the British contention before the Paris tribunal of arbitration." 

Yet, curiously enough, Dr. Jordan, on page 120, immediately preceding this dog- 
matic deduction, cuts all the ground out from under his own feet in the following 
statement: 

, "But suppose the killing was continued through a series of years, every 3-year-old 
being killed, the reserve would in time be cut off and the stock of breeding bulls 
die out. It is impossible to say how long it would take to produce this effect, because 
we do not know the length of the life of a bull. We may infer, however, that it is 
not lass than 15 years, and therefore the injurious effects of this excessive killing, 
begun in any given year and continued indefinitely, would not be seen within 10 
years at least." 

This he publishes under the caption of "A hypothetical case." 

It is not hypothetical. It is the real story of the driving and killing on the islands 
from 1880 up to 1890. During all those years I know, from the records of the work 
and the direct personal testimony of the men who did the work, that they never allowed 
a 3-year-old seal to escape that they could get. That in 1883 they first began to 
fall behind in their run of 3-year-old seals from the hunting grounds of 1872-1874, 
which had so abundantly supplied them. Then they began to extend their driving 
to the hitherto untouched hauling grounds of the islands, until by 1896 they were 
driving from every nook and corner on the islands where a young male seal hauled 
out, and by 1889, in spite of the frantic exertions that they made, they got less than 
one-quarter of their quota of 3-year-old skins. They had to make it up in yearlings 
and "short" 2-year-olds for that year. 

In the face of this positive truth about the woik of 1889, which appears in my 
report of 1890, Dr. Jordan, in 1898, makes the following strange blunder of statement: 
"To destroy this class (3-year-olds) or any considerable number of them would at once 
weaken the herd. But there would be no object in such killing, and it has never 
been thought of" (p. 120). 

Never been thought of. Why, it was the sole aim and thought of the land butchers 
to get every fine 3-year-old and 4-year-old seal that could be secured in the seal 
drives from 1872 to 1890 When the supply of this grade dwindled on the original 



FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 93 

sources of supply then the work of driving from the hitherto untouched reservoirs was 
regularly increased with vigor and tireless persistency. 

But Dr. Jordan makes his case still worse, for he goes on to say that this overkilling 
is not practicable. On page 321 he declares: "In the hypothetical case above cited 
we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in theory 
this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. There are certain 
hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Saevitch Rock, and 
Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven. Ihe 
young males frequenting there, were left undisturbed. " 

This emphatic statement by Dr. Jordan is wholly and completely untrue. I have 
the recora ana the proof that each and everyone of these places of retreat which 
he names above have been annually visited by the sealing gangs on St. Paul Island 
since 1884; and these "undisturbed" seals have been regularly driven off from those 
particular places, so that they would haul out on other places where they could be 
taken more advantageously, or they were killed, thousands and tens of thousands of 
them, right on the ground itself, notably on Southwest Point in 1884-1886. They were 
entirely tunted off from other islands because the law and the lease does not allow 
the lessees to kill seals there. And this particular secret work was in progress right up 
to the hour when I stopped it, July 20, 1890. 

Now, who has imposed upori Dr. Jordan with this bald untruth? Who has so com- 
pletely and shamefully misled him? What avails his high personal character or his 
deserved reputation as a naturalist when he makes a gross and a monumental blunder 
like this? A blunder upon which he bases his whole defense of an abuse which I 
condemn? 

It is in order now to submit the proof that Dr. Jordan has falsified 
this island work as to not driving or taking of seals by the lessees to 
slaughter from certain "reservations" and " inaccessible places." It 
is given in Hearing No. 14, July 25, 1912 (pp. 923-924, H. Com. 
Dept. Com. & Labor), thus: 

Mr. Elliott. One of the most flagrant and inexcusable matters of "scientific" 
malfeasance as to conduct of tl e public business on the seal islands of Alaska is tl at 
repeated and untruthful statement made by Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896-1898, 
and which I have made the following review of (see pp. 66, 67, Hearing No. 2, June 
9, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor), and continued by his associates ever 
since, to wit: 

"But Dr. Jordan make"s his case still worse, for he goes on to say that tl is over- 
killing is not practicable. On page 121 he declares: 'In the hypothetical case above 
cited we have supposed that every male of a given age could be taken. While in 
theory this is possible, in practice it could probably never be done. Tl ere are cer- 
tain hauling grounds, such as Lagoon, Zapadnie Head, Otter Island, Seevitch Rock, 
and Southwest Point, from which the seals have not and never have been driven. 
The young males frequenting there were left undisturbed.' " 

Mr. Elliott. I submit herewith, appended, the following proof of that err"neouf- 
statement made by Dr. Jordan, as above cited, to wit: 

Those "whistles" used on St. Paul, in 1890, and for driving off those seals as stated 
in my notes following these of St. George, were not unknown, it is clear, to the lessees 
at least six years before I knew anything about tl em. 

[WardmaD's Entrie?.] 

St. George Island, July and late June. 

June 28, 1884- * * * First driving off of the young seals from under High 
Bluffs just west of Stony Arteet. The natives set up small, noisy windmills, spilled 
coal oil on the rocks, and set a number of small flags. * * * 

But a few days afterward I [Wardman] was astonished to see the young seals all 
back there laying in and around these windmill "screechers" and the fluttering 
flags, showing no fear of them whatever. * * * 

Natives sent down every few days with boats and whistles to drive the holluschickie 
off. since they can not round them up, and kill on the beach margin — too narrow. 

[Elliott's diary, St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.] 

Thursday, July 3, 1890. 
Palmer, back from Nortl east Point tl is evening, reports that all tl e native sealing 
gang used tl eir whistles and stampeded the holluschickie under the bluffs at Lukanin 
and on Katavio Point, as tl ey came down with him; he says that they told him that 



94 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

they all had these whistles and used them to drive seals out of the rookeries, especi- 
ally under these bluffs of Lukanin, of the Reef and Seevitchie Rammers; also of the 
shelf on Zapadnie and Polovina Bluffs. 

Saturday, July 5, 1890. 
Tingle drove all the holluschickie off from the landing (at Otter Island) as soon as 
we came ashore. 



July 9, 1890. 
Three natives driving holluschickie under the "drop" at Zapadnie. They told 
me that they had killed several thousand down there on tl e shelf in 1887-88, and 
carried the skins off in the baidar; only a few here to-day, and so drove them off, 
rather than make a killing; also that every one of the S. W. Point seals were slaugh- 
tered there on the ground in 1887-88; finest lot seals ever rounded up, not one under 
size, and all secured. 

[Elliott's diary on St. Pauls Island, May 21-Aug. 14, 1890.] 

Thursday, July 3, 1890. 

Mr. Goff ' asked me to.-night if I was aware of the fact that the natives had been 
ordered to sweep the bluff margins at Zapadnie and strew broken bottles, coal-oil 
cans, etc., on the rocks. I told him that I was; that this work of hustling out every 
young male seal that could be found hiding in the shelter of the rookery margins and 
under the high bluffs at Zapadnie, Polavina, Lukannon, and west side of Reef Point, 
Sieviethie Kammen, and Otter Island was begun here in 1884, and also on St. George. 

Mr. Goff also asked me if I knew that the natives were supplied with whistles for 
stampeding the holluschickie on the rookery margins next to the surf, and that squads 
were employed secretly at the work. I told him, yes; that Palmer 1 had witnessed 
and heard such a "drive" under Lukannon bluffs, when he was coming down from 
Northeast Point, 4th instant. Palmer reported the occurrence to me. 

What shall we do? As matters stand, do nothing but record it; it simply shows 
the extreme diminution of the young male life. 



Friday, July 4- 
Booterin and Artamonov both shrugged their shoulders this morning when I asked 
them about the whistles — "Excuse me, please," and off they shuffled with very 
wise grins. 

I cornered Aggie Cushing to-day, and he admitted that he had been ordered to 
"salt" the bluff rocks at Zapadnie in 1889; that every seal had been killed at S. W. 
Point and "Kursoolah" by the end of the season of 1888; that this hauling ground 
was not driven; the baidar came direct from the village and the men rounded the 
seals all up on the ground itself, killed and skinned them there, "all big seals;" "fine, 
very fine seals; none got away." "When did you first come, Aggie? " "June, 1886, 
we came first time." "Why?" "Big, fine seals, sir; get 'em; every one, too." 
"Its pretty well grass grown over there now; when did you quit killing there? "We 
got them all in 1888, sir." "Why haven't any seals hauled there since?" "There 
ain't any left — they have all gone, maas lucken." "When do you think the trouble 
began here, Aggie?" "It first became hard, Mr. Elliott, in 1883, and it has been 
getting harder and slower all the time." "Have you got a whistle, Aggie? " "Yes," 
and showed it to me, slung under his shirt by a neck string; it was a regular pewter 
dog whistle. Aggie begged off when asked as to details of the work of the whistle 
brigade, and I dropped the subject. 

DR. JORDAN DELIBERATELY FALSIFIES THE RUSSIAN RECORD IN RE 
NOT KILLING FEMALE SEALS. 

Dr. Jordan had full knowledge of the fact that the Russian killing 
of seals from the time the old Russian American company took 
charge of the Pribilof herd in 1800, up to the day we received it 
from them in 1867, never permitted the killing of female seals. 
He, with that full knowledge in his possession, after holding it for 

1 Chas. J. Gofl, named above, is dead. W. S. Palmer, however, also named and quoted above, is now 
employed as one of the curators and preparators in the United States National Museum, Washington, 
D. C. (May 13, 1913). 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 95 

nearly two years, has the following untruthful statement to finally 
report under date of February 24, 1898, relative to the conduct of 
this work of killing- seals by the Russian management of the herd, to 
wit. 

On page 25, Fur Seal Investigation, Part I, 1898, under head of 
the "Company's management," he says: 

At once, upon assuming control of the islands, the Russian American company put 
a stop to the ruthless slaughter which threatened the fur-seal herds with destruction. 
* * * They still continued to kill males and females alike. The injury to the 
herd naturally continued. * * * 

That Dr. Jordan could make such a statement in distinct denial of 
the only authority which he has used, and knows, is hard to believe, 
when on page 222, following, of this same report above cited, part 
third, appears the following translation of Bishop Yeniaminov's ac- 
count of this killing, which was originally published in St. Peters- 
burg, 1839, by Von Baer, to wit: 

The taking of fur seals commenced in the latter days of September. * * * The 
siekatchie (bulls) and old females (i. c. two years and older) having been removed. 
the others are divided into small squads and are carefully driven to the place where 
they are to be killed, sometimes more than ten versts distant. * * * 

When brought to the killing grounds they are rested for an hour or more, according 
to circumstances, and then killed with a club. * * * Of those 1 year old. the males 
are separated from the females and killed; the latter are driven carefully back to the 
beach. 

Here is the explicit, clear cut statement made by Veniaminov, 
who, writing in 1825, after a season spent on St. Pauls Island, denies 
Dr. Jordan's assertion that the Russians killed male and female seals 
alike, and that that killing of females destroyed the herd. 

And still worse for Dr. Jordan, this translation quoted, was made 
by Leonhard Stejncger, one of Dr. Jordan's own associates on the 
Seal Islands, in 1896-97. 

There is but one conclusion for any fair mind in the premises. 
That the Russians did not kill the female seals is positively stated by 
the only authority who has been invoked by Dr. Jordan in the 
premises, and who has been translated at length in Dr. Jordan's final 
report, and correctly translated, as above cited. 

In this connection it is also passing strange that Dr. Jordan should 
have gone out of his way to misquote another authority who has 
explicitly denied the killing of female seals by the Russians. On page 
25, Jordan's own statement is — 

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the Imperial Government, after an inspection of the 
fur-seal rookeries, called attention to the practice of killing the young animals and 
leaving only the adults as bleeders. He writes: "It any of the young breeders are not 
killed by autumn they are sure to be killed in the following spring." 

Unfortunately for Dr. Jordan, he has not quoted Yanovsky cor- 
rectly. He has deliberately suppressed the fact as stated by this 
Russian agent, and put another and entirely different statement in 
his mouth; witness the following correct quotation of Yanovsky: 

In his report No. 41, of the 25th February, 1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an account 
of his inspection of the operations on the islands of St. Paul and St. George, observes 
that "every year the young bachelor seals are killed, and that only the cows, seekatchie, 
and half siekatch are left to propagate the species." It follows that only the old seals 
are left while if any of the bachelors are left alive in the autumn they are sure to be 
killed the next spring. The consequence is the number of seals obtained diminishes 
every year, and it is certain that the species will in time become extinct. (Appendix 
to case of United States Fur Seal Arbitration, Letter No. 6, p. 58, Mar. 5, 1821.) 



96 PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

Think of this deliberate, studied suppression of the fact that the 
Russians did not kill the female seals thus made by a "scientist" like 
Dr. Jordan, as above. Why does Dr» Jordan attempt to deceive his 
Government as to the real cause of that Russian decline of the herd 
between 1800 and 1834? Why, indeed, when the truth is so easily 
brought up to confound him ? 

Why does Jordan substitute " breeders" for Yanovsky's "bache- 
lors"? to deceive; for a "breeder" is a female seal as well as male, 
and that is precisely what Yanovsky has stated — that female seals 
are not killed, but the "young bachelor" seals are; and are all killed 
in the spring if they are not so killed in the autumn prior. 

He stands convicted out of his own hand of having falsified the 
record of Russian killing so as to justify the shame and ruin of that 
work of our own lessees, who are thus shielded by him in his official 
report to our Government dated February 24, 1898, and published 
bv the Secretary of the Treasury, in January, 1898, under title of 
"Fur Seal Investigation, parts 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1898." 

The record of Br. David Starr Jordan on the killing grounds of the 
Seal Islands in 1896-97 , clothed with full authority to regulate the TciUing 
of seals, then: 

VII. On July 11, 1896, less than one month after the publication 
of those "Carlisle rules," above quoted, Dr. David Starr Jordan 
landed on the Seal Islands, clothed with a supervising power on the 
part of the Government over all this killing of the seals. He sends 
to the department a report on this subject, and conceals from it the 
fact that those "Carlisle rules" of May 14, 1896, have been openly 
and flagrantly violated during the very first season of their publication. 
(See Preliminary Report No. 7, 1896, p. 21, Treas. Doc. No. 1913, by 
David Starr Jordan.) 

The department has every confidence in Dr. Jordan as a naturalist, 
who could not be deceived as to what "yearling" seals were, and 
accepted his indorsement of this work by the lessees who killed those 
yearling seals as above cited, in violation of that specific prohibition 
by the department and under Dr. Jordan's supervision. 

But Dr. Jordan did know what a yearling seal was, and the following 
entries made in the official journal declare it, for he was busy in 
securing them as specimens for his own use, to wit: Under date of 
Sunday, September 27, 1896, the following entry appears on page 53 
of the official journal of the Government agents on St. Paul Island: 

13. The skin of a yearling bull, smothered in the food drive from Lukannon was 
taken for Stanford University. 

8. A yearling holluschak shot on reef, supposed to be a virgin cow; the skin taken 
for California Academy of Sciences. 

Dr. Jordan had with him three naturalists, who served as his 
subordinates on the occasion of his visit in 1896 and again in 1897 to 
the Seal Islands. These associates, Messrs. Stejneger, Lucas, and 
Townsend, all united with Dr. Jordan in that report of 1896 (Treas. 
Doc., No. 1913, Nov. 7, 1896), which gave this illegal killing of year- 
lings in 1896 a clean bill of health and which is so faithfully recorded 
in the London sales sheet, December following, as being in violation 
of those rules of May 14, 1896, above cited. 

That Dr. Jordan, at the head of a great university, should thus 
attempt to conceal" the truth about that killing as above stated, seems 
fairly unreasonable. What influence could the lessees have over 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 97 

him ? Leland Stanford, Jr., University was then governed by a board 
of trustees, and chief on that board was one of the lessees, D. O. Mills. 
That lessee was a commanding figure. It might have been very un- 

Eleasant in result for Dr. Jordan had he stopped the lessees' work, as 
e should have done, and reported their violation of the Secretary of 
Treasury's order to the department, as was his sworn duty to do. 

Whatever may have been the cause of Jordan's dereliction in the 
premises, the fact remains that he was derelict, and not from want 
of knowledge of what a yearling seal was. 

On July 24, 1913, the natives of St. Paul Island, during the course 
of a meeting with the agents of the House Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Commerce, on St. Paul Island, had this to say 
of Dr. Jordan and this illegal work of 1896 (this statement is a depo- 
sition duly taken) : 

Question. When, after this y^ar (1890), did you get orders to kill those small seals — 
to kill all of them that came in the drives? 

Answer. In 1896 we commenced to take the 5-pound skins, to the best of our rec- 
ollection. 

Question. Who directed this work of killing the small seals on the killing grounds? 

Answer. We do not remember; but J. Stanley Brown was the company's agent at 
that time. 

Question. Did the Government agents object? 

Answer. We do not remember. 

This shows that no objection on the part of the Government agents 
was made, or those natives surely would have recalled it, just as they 
remembered that this particular work was begun, as stated. 

VIII. — This work of Dr. David Starr Jordan in 1896, was repeated 
by him in 1897, and the same covering given to the killing of small 
seals; and, on page 18 of his second preliminary report, dated 
November 1, 1897, he says: 

Last year the hauling grounds of the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killable seals. 
During the present season a quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To get these it was 
necessary to drive more frequently and cull the animals more closely than has been 
done since 1889. The killing season was closed on July 27, in 1896. This year it 
was extended on St. Paul to August 7, and on St. George to August 11. The quota 
to be left to our discretion, and every opportunity was given the lessees to take the 
full product of the hauling of grounds. 

ISAAC LIEBES SECURES THE APPOINTMENT OF LEMBKEY THROUGH 
THE MEDIUM OF DR. JORDAN ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1900, BY SECRE- 
TARY GAGE 

We have shown how the lessees managed to get rid of Chief Special 
Agent Goff and Assistant Agent Lavender, and then to suborn 
Assistant Agents Murray and Nettleton, who at first had joined with 
Goff. YA e have shown how they secured the appointment of Williams 
to succeed Goff, and Ziebach to take Lavender's place. We have 
shown how they secured the appointment of J. Stanley Brown to take 
Williams's place after the latter had expressed his dislike of the course 
which he had been ordered to pursue as Goff's successor. We have 
shown how Brown promptly made an official order July 8, 1892, 
turning the whole business of driving, selection, and killing of seals 
on the killing grounds to the lessees ; and we have shown how Brown, 
for this guilty subserviency and malfeasance as a United States 
agent, had been made the "superintendent of the North American 

21588—13—7 



98 PUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

Commercial Co ," or the lessees' work on the islands in 1894. We 
have shown how Murray was rewarded by being made chief special 
agent in 1887; and when he died in 1888 how John Morton, another 
subservient man, was put in charge as " United States chief special 
agent" by the lessees. It now becomes necessary to show how 
Liebes had W. J. Lembkey appointed as Morton's successor Septem- 
ber 30, 1900, which was soon after Morton's death on the island of 
St. Paul, July 15, 1900. 

This record of Liebes's and Elkins's (lessees) influence is important 
at this juncture, because Lembkey has been the active official instru- 
ment which those men have used to secure illegally more than 100,000 
"small pup," or yearling seals, since 1899 up to May 1, 1910. 

When Mr. Lembkey was put under oath, April 13, 1912, he swore 
that he did not know who recommended his appointment as John 
Morton's successor. He testified to the committee as follows : 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, you were appointed when? 

Mr. Lembkey. Appointed to what position, sir? 

Mr. Elliott. To your office of assistant agent in the seal islands of Alaska. 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1899. 

Mr. Elliott. From what place where you appointed? 

Mr. Lembkey. From what place? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, from what position? 

Mr. Lembkey. I was appointed 

Mr. Elliott. What position were you holding? 

Mr. Lembkey. I was holding a clerkship in the Treasury Department at the time 
of my appointment. 

Mr. Elliott. That appointment was dated when? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not know; I do not remember. 

Mr. Elliott. About what time did you go to the islands in 1899? 

Mr. Lembkey. I got there some time in May or June — I forget which; I think May. 

Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief special agent in charge of the islands? 

Mr. Lembkey. John M. Morton. 

Mr. Elliott. When were you appointed as chief special agent in charge of the seal 
islands? 

Mr. Lembkey. Some time in 1900. I think in October. 

Mr. Elliott. You were appointed to take the position of whom? 

Mr. Lembkey. John M. Morton. 

Mr. Elliott. Who asked for your appointment? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not know. 

Mr. Elliott. Is it true that Mr. Isaac Liebes asked Dr. Jordan to telegraph Secre- 
tary Gage that you be appointed to Mr. Morton's place? 

Mr. Lembkey. I did not know Mr. Isaac Liebes at that time, and, of course, I do 
not suppose he did. However, as I have stated, I do not know who made the recom- 
mendation. I am under the impression the recommendation was made by the super- 
vising special agent. 

Mr. Elliott. It was not made by Dr. Jordan? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not know anything about it. Dr. Jordan himself has denied 
that he ever made any recommendation in the case . So far as I know I can not answer 
the question. I was on the seal islands at the time of my appointment. 

Mr. Elliott. You were on the seal islands at the time of your appointment? 

Mr. Lembkey. At the time of my appointment as agent in charge. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Morton died when? 

Mr. Lembkey. He died during my absence from the islands. I think it was in 
July, 1900, or June; I am not certain which — either June or July of 1900. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know who asked for your appointment? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have not any knowledge whatever on that subject. (Hearing No. 
9, p. 425, Apr. 13; 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept., C. &. L.). 

Lembkey swears that he does not know who asked for his appoint- 
ment, as above-cited testimony attests. The following statement of 
fact shows that Isaac Liebes, for the lessees, asked Dr. Jordan to urge 
Lembkey as Morton's successor, and that Jordan did Liebes's bidding, 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 99 

and Secretary of the Treasury Gage, September 30, 1900, in response 
to Jordan's request, appointed Lembkey. 

In April, 1899, W. J. Lembkey, a $1,200 clerk in the Customs 
Division, United States Treasury Department, was appointed to the 
vacancy of an assistant special agent for service on the seal islands. 
At the same time John Morton, assistant agent, was promoted to the 
chief special agent's office, made vacant by the death of Joseph 
Murray, October, 1898, at Fort Collins, Colo. 

Morton and Lembkey went up together from San Francisco, and 
landed on St. Paul Island on June 10, 1899. Morton, in August fol- 
lowing, went back to Washington for the winter, and left Lembkey 
on St. Paul Island in charge. 

When Morton returned, June 11, 1900, to St. Paul Island, he found 
Lembkey ill and suffering from an ulcerated jaw, or threatened 
necrosis of his jawbone. Lembkey obtained an immediate leave of 
absence and left the island at once, on June 13, proceeded direct to 
San Francisco on Liebes's chartered ship, Homer, to go under a sur- 
geon's treatment when he arrived there (on or about June 27 or 28, 
or early in July, 1900). 

In the meantime Morton became ill, and died July 15, 1900. He 
died in the Government agent's house on St. Paul Island. The news 
of Morton's death reached Washington and San Francisco on or 
about August 1 to 8 following. Lembkey, who had in the meantime 
been relieved b}^ surgical treatment, had started back to the islands 
on the same vessel of the lessees which had carried him down, the 
Homer. She sailed on or about August 8 for this return trip to St. 
Paul. Before he left San Francisco, and while down there on this 
errand, as above stated, he was a frequent visitor to the office of Isaac 
Liebes, on those matters of business which were connected with his 
living on the islands with his family free of all cost for board, together 
with service for not himself, but for his wife and daughter. He also 
had the business of his passage up and down free for his wife and 
daughter on that vessel, and himself, if his allowance of $600 per 
annum for traveling expenses did not meet his own trip costs to and 
from Washington. 

Thus Mr. Lembkey became very well acquainted with Mr. Liebes, 
and the seals never failed to form a common bond of interest. Liebes 
soon knew Lembkey well. 

"When Liebes learned of Morton's death, as usual, he at once looked 
for a "proper successor" for the man whom he could trust as a 
United States agent in charge. He sent word to David Starr Jordan, 
then at Palo Alto, that he (Liebes) desired him (Jordan) to telegraph 
Secretary Gage of the immediate need for selection of a fit successor 
to John Morton, and that he (Jordan) desired the appointment of 
W. J. Lembkey; that was done by Jordan, on or about August 25 
or 28, or thereabouts. On September 30, 1900, Gage ordered, as 
Morton's successor, the appointment of Lembkey, and notified Ezra 
W. Clark that he had done so at the request of Dr. Jordan. Clark 
had been promised the place and did not fail to tell why he had 
lost it. 

It will be observed that Lembkey swears that he does not know 
who urged his appointment; he was on the seal islands at the time 
of his appointment; he arrived on the islands — after leaving San 
Francisco on the Homer, August 8 — on the 19th of August, 1900. 



100 FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

Since his appointment was not made until September 30 following, 
at Liebes's and Jordan's inspiration, he did not get news of it until 
the following season, early in May. 

Now let us see what Dr. Jordan has to say about this, after he had 
been charged with this nomination of Lembkey (by Henry W. 
Elliott). He addressed a letter to President Roosevelt, dated 
January 16, 1906, in which he made the following evasive reference, 
to wit: 

I may say incidentally, with reference to the concluding remark of Mr. Elliott in 
his letter, that while I formed a very favorable opinion of Mr. Lembkey during his 
incumbency of a position in the Treasury Department in 1896-97, it is not just to 
him to say that "he owes his appointment" to my nomination. Nor is it fair to 
hold Mr. Lembkey responsible for the failure to solve these scientific questions. 
They demand a training which he doubtless has not had, and in any event they could 
not have been worked out successfully in addicion to the ordinary duties and respon- 
sibilities of his position. The natiualist who is to understand the herd must spend 
practically all his time in observation of the rookeries. 

Against this evasive answer (no denial) of his part in securing 
Lembkey's appointment, the files of the Treasury will show, in the 
appointment clerk's office, that telegram from Jordan, which urged 
the appointment of Lembkey, and which secured it. 

Later, in 1905, Lembkey, fearing the result of an examination into 
his work at the islands by Mr. F. H. Hitchcock, in 1905-6, "cast an 
anchor to the windward," and told the truth October 26, 1905, about 
the effect of the killing by the lessees (pp. 157-179, Appendix A.). 

The moment that Lembkey understood that the lessees had pre- 
vented Hitchcock from visiting the islands (early in 1906), he 
(Lembkey) returned to his service of the lessees, abjectly and shame- 
fully; ate his own words of truth, and joined with Jordan in the 
usual annual eulogy of the "benevolent killing" on the islands, and 
the hypocritical cry of "terrible destruction by the pelagic sealers," 
etc., as the following exhibit clearly declares, to wit: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, October 26, 1905. 
Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report on the administration of affairs 
on the seal islands of Alaska during the year ended August, 1905: 

There were so few bulls on certain rookeries on St. Paul Island this summer that, by 
reason of their scarcity, the harems were broken up before the usual period and bachelors 
were able to haul among the cows. 

This occurred at a date when these young seals should have been excluded from 
the breeding ground by vigilant bulls, and then forced to haul up, if they desired to 
haul at all, only on the bachelor's hauling ground. 

This condition, in our opinion, is due to the scarcity of breeding males on the rookeries 
generally, and to their being so taxed in special localities with the service of the cows 
that they were unable or unwilling to drive out the bachelors. Had idle bulls been 
sufficiently numerous this condition would not have occurred. 

The present scarcity of bulls is attributable directly to close killing on land, from which 
not enough bachelors were allowed to escape from the killing fields to maintain the 
requisite proportion of bulls. 

Respectfully, W. I. Lembkey, 

Agent in Charge Seal Islands. 
The Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 

But, in 1913, h.3 has another "report" to make — to-wit: 

Mr. -Lembkey. The number of breeding bulls on the island, as found by the fore- 
going census, is 1,356 active and 329 idle, a total of 1 ,685 bulls ready for service. With 
39,400 breeding and 10,297 virgin females, occupied with 1,356 active bulls, the 
average harem is only 36. The 329 idle bulls which did not secure cows during the summer 
will serve some of the 2-year-old or virgin cows coming in for their initial impregnation 



PUE-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 101 

in the fall, and would reduce the size of the average harem to 30, a perfectly normal 
ratio of the sexes. 

It might be claimed that the size of the herd of idle bulls is very small, and that 
therefore not enough male seals escape the killing grounds to maintain an ideally 
healthy relation between breeding males and females. It is true that the number of 
idle bulls is small, but proportionately it is as large as any true friend of the seals 
would desire. With a total of only 1,685 adult bulls present, the idle, 329, represent 
19 per cent, or nearly one-fifth, of the whole number present. This number has not 
been estimated, but has actually been counted one by one, so that the presence of 
these bulls is not in the least a matter of conjecture, but is an assured fact. With 
1 bull idle out of every 5 present, not even the most radical critic could fail of conviction 
that an ample surplus of male life exists, and for this reason the killing of male seals 
on land has not been of such a nature as to endanger in any way the safety of the herd or 
its future increase— {Hearing No. 9, p. 368, Feb. 29, 1912, H. Com. Dept. Com. & 
Labor.) 

Note. — There is no breeding after August 1, annually, and no one knows it better 
than Lembkey.— H. W. E. 

GUILTY KNOWLEDGE OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

That the Bureau of Fisheries had complete knowledge of the fact 
that these " loaded" weights which are certified into the skin records 
of killing and taking by the lessees did not govern the size or value of 
them when sold is admitted, under oath, as follows : 

Mr. Madden. The point is, does the Aveight of the skin have anything to do with the 
value of the skin? 

Mr. Lembkey. The weight of the skin, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the 
value of the skin. 

Mr. Madden. Is it sold by the pound, or how? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not by the pound, by the size — the amount of tur on it. If we should 
leave 5 pounds of blubber on the skin there would only be so much fur on it for the 
garment maker to make the garment of. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. If you took a young skin and for the purpose of making it appear 
by weight older, you could deceive? 

Mr. Lembkey. We certainly could deceive. We could fill it with any sort of substance. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You say measurement would not be reliable because it might 
be stretched. Suppose you did not stretch it, suppose you take it honestly, then 
would it be, if honestly taken, would it be a test? 
"*■ Mr. Lembkey. I tried to make that clear to the committee. 

The Chairman. That is a direct question. Why do you not answer it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I am attempting to. It is impossible; of course all our actions up 
there are honestly 

Mr. Madden (interposing). Answer the question right straight. Do not try to 
explain it. 

Mr. Lembkey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is impos- 
sible to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may curl 
up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened by salt. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then it will not stretch? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly not. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid 
and stiff? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You can not then stretch or shrink it? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin would it not deter- 
mine the age? 

Mr. Lembkey. I fancy, yes. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Is there any doubt about it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not think so. I say fancy, because I never attempted to judge 
of age by the measurements. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive, 
because you say they could not stretch it? 

Mr. Lembkey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days, 
because the skin then is not very pliable. 



102 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA, 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a certain 
number of days? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, after it has been in salt, but when the skin is green it would not 
be a reliable test. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 399-400, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Lab.) 

Here the chief special agent of the Bureau of Fisheries in charge 
of the seal islands distinctly tells the committee that when those 
skins taken by him have been in salt "four or five days" they can not 
be stretched or shrunken; that they are then fixed for a reliable 
measurement, and so fixed when they leave the islands for the London 
sales. 

Then, later on, this chief special agent in charge of the seal islands, 
when asked by the committee to give his measurements made by 
himself of a yearling seal of his own identification as such, he swears 
(on pp. 442, 443) as follows (Hearing No. 9.): 

Mr. Lembkey. Now, Mr. Elliott, proceed. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, do you know the length of a yearling seal from its 
nose to the tip of its tail? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir, not off-hand. 

Mr. Elliott. You never measured one? 

Mr. Lembkey. Oh, yes, I have measured one. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you no record of it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have a record of it here. 

Mr. Elliott. What is its length? 

Mr. Lembkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be. from the tip 
of the nose to the root of the tail, 39\ inches in one instance and 39\ in another instance 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another instance. I measured only three. 

Mr. Elliott. When you take a skin off of that yearling seal, how much of that skin do 
you leave on there? 

Mr. Lembkey. You do not leave very much on the tail end there [indicating]; not 
nearly so much as your sketch would show. 

Mr. Elliott. It does not matter. 

Mr. Lembkey. We leave about 3 inches, -perhaps, on the head. 

Mr. Elliott. How much can you sav is left on a yearling after you have taken the 
skin off? 

The Chairman. How much skin is left after you have taken it off? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; after they remove it for commercial purposes a certain amount 
is left on. 

Mr. Lembkey. i" stated about 3 inches. 

Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long. 

Mr. Lembkey. No; if it was 39% inches long it would leave it 36% inches. That is, all 
the animal from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail would be 39 % inches long. 
Three inches off that ivould leave 36^ inches. 

In this distinct and explicit statement, Mr. Lembkey tells the com- 
mittee that a yearling seal skin of his own identification and measure- 
ment is S6\ inches long, and that its measurement as such is fixed 
and constant after "four or five days in salt." 

On page 447, he admits to the committee that the official classifi- 
cation of his catch of 12,920 seal skins taken by him in 1910 and 
measured in salt carries 7,733 skins which are less than 34 inches 
long (or are yearling skins), any one of them, as follows: 

Mr. Elliott. I am getting at the analysis of your catch which you have given here 
already. You have given in a statement here that 8,000 of them were "small" and 
"extra small." 

Mr. Lembkey. 7,700. 

Mr. Elliott. 7,700? 

Mr. Lembkey. 7,733 were small and extra small pups. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Fraser tells us that those seals none of them measured more than 
34 inches nor less than 30 inches. 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 103 

Mr. Lembkey. The committee can see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser states that 
small pups measured SS\ inches in length. 

Mr. Elliott. From there [indicating] to there [indicating]. 

Mr. Lembkey. Thirty-three and three-quarters inches in length, and extra small pups 
measured 30 inches in length. 

Mr. Elliott. Then you have some extra small pups there which makes it 8,000. 

Mr. Lembkey. Only 11 of those. 

Mr. Elliott. It does not amount to anything. 

Mr. Lembkey. It just makes your 8,000 about 800 more than the actual number. 

Mr. Lembkey can not sensibly dispute the fact that he has taken 
7,733 "yearling" seals in 1910; and this done in open violation of 
the law and regulations of the department which he is sworn to obey 
and enforce, and which he quotes to the committee (on p. 372) as 
follows : 

Mr. Madden. If they were hilled it would be a violation of law. 

Mr. Lembkey. It would; if the regulations permitted it, however, it would be in 
accordance with existing law. 

It should be remembered also that the law does not prohibit the killing of any male 
6eal over 1 year or 12 months <3f age, although regulations of the department do prohibit 
the killing of anything less than 2 years old, or those seals which have returned to the 
islands from their second migration. 

Mr. Townsend. That is a regulation of the Secretary of Commerce and Labor? 

Mr. Lembkey. Of Commerce and Labor; yes, sir. 

Mr. Young. Let me before you pass from that ask this: You weigh these green 
skins on the islands, and then measure them in the markets in London. What is your 
purpose in weighing, and what is their purpose in measuring'? 

Mr. Lembkey. Our purpose in weighing the skins on the island is to get them within 
the weights prescribed by the regulations. Our regulations prescribe maximum and 
minimum weights. Those weights are 5 pounds 

Mr. Young. Does that relate to the question of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds and eight and one-half pounds. 

Mr. Young. Passing from the weight, in London what is the determining purpose in 
measuring? 

Mr. Lembkey. They measure them, I fancy 

Mr. Young. Are they trying to arrive at the question of age, too? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are trying to get the size of the skin or the amount of fur on the 
animal. 

Mr. Young. They care nothing about the question of age there? 

Mr. Lembkey. Nothing at all. 

Mr. Young. That is all I care to ask. 

That these natives know what they are doing when directed by 
the lessees to kill seals, the following testimony of Chief Special Agent 
Lembkey fully attests; it is found on page 58 of manuscript notes 
of Y\ ays and Means hearing, January 25, 1907. 

Mr. Lembkey. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that the clubbers on the island are expert 
in their business, and they can determine the weight of a skin on a live seal to within 
a fraction of a pound. 

Mr. Grosvenor. That is all I wanted to know. 

Mr. Lembkey. They also know the age of a seal from his appearance. 

Manuscript notes, page 59: 

Mr. Clark. These experts can tell a 4-year-old from a 3-year-old, can they? 
Mr. Lembkey. By looking at him. 
Mr. Clark. By looking at him? 
Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 
Mr. Clark. They are pretty expert. 
Mr. Needham. Are these killers, "natives"? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, they are natives. I can state positively that they arrive at 
that degree of experience. 



104 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

We find that on May 14, 1896, the Secretary of the Treasury in- 
structed the agents in charge of the seal islands to permit "no taking 
of seals that had skins less than 6 pounds in weight," or " yearlings." 
This order is entered at length, at page 14, of the official record or 
journal, of the special agent, St. Paul Island, on June 17, 1896. In 
1900, Chief Special Agent Lembkey (suceeeding John Morton, who 
died that year) submits a report to the Treasury Department for this 
season's work of 1900 (as well as 1901), in which he says: 

In 1900 the standard was lowered from 6 pounds to 5 pounds, being the first time in 
the history of this business, and as many 5-pound skins as could be found were taken. 

An inspection of the official journal of the chief special agent, St. 
Paul's Island, for the season of 1900, fails to show any entry of any 
order from the Secretary of the Treasury which rescinds that official 
order of May 14, 1896, and which would be in the same official log 
book if made. By what authority was this killing which Mr. Lemb- 
key, and which the London records certify to — by what legal or moral 
authority was that killing, as well as " the taking of skins weighing 
less than 6 pounds or yearlings," made during this season? None, 
whatever. 

In 1904, following the visit of Senators Dillingham, Nelson, Burn- 
ham, and Patterson (this killing of those yearling seal having been 
noticed by those Senators on the islands August 3, 1903), they intro- 
duced a bill which suspended entirely the work of the lessees on these 
islands. That caused the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, Mr. 
Cortelyou, to come forward and engage to check up this work of killing 
the small seals and yearlings, and on his pledge the Senators refrained 
from pressing that bill. He accordingly issued what is known as the 
Hitchcock Rules, ordered May 1, 1904, which forbade the killing of 
" any seal having a skin weighing less than 5|- pounds or any seals un 
der 2 years of age." 

We now reach that combination made between the lessees and the 
Government agents to evade this order of the Hitchcock Rules ; when 
Hitchcock left the Department of Commerce and Labor early in 1905 
these men went to work as follows: 

An unwilling confession was made by Lembkey of that guilt of 
nullification, when cross-examined, under oath, before the House 
Committee on Expenditures Department Commerce and Labor, Feb- 
ruary 20-April 13, 1912. (See pp. 363, 458, Hearing No. 9.) 

This conspiracy to enable D. O. Mills, United States Senator Elkins, 
and Isaac Liebes, as lessees, to enrich themselves at the public cost 
and credit, has been shielded and approved by the "scientific" 
"Advisory Board on Fur-Seal Service," with Dr. David S. Jordan, 
as "president" of the same. 

Liebes and Lembkey got together to nullify the Hitchcock Rules 
in 1906, which ordered the reservation of 2,000 young male seals 
(1,000 2-year-olds and 1,000 3-year-olds), annually before the 
lessees' killing began, this reservation being ordered thus, to pre- 
vent the swift impending ruin of all male breeding seal life on the 
rookeries. 

In further proof of the fact that Lembkey knew he was killing 
those "reserved" 3-year-old seals, so as to meet the wishes of Liebes, 
the following official evidence is submitted. 

In 1905 First Assistant Agent Judge, finding that he was killing 
in October and November, 1904, all of the 3-year-old seals which 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. ' 105 

had been ; ' reserved" and "immune" from slaughter in June and July 
previously, he made a clear pointed statement to that effect in his 
annual report, dated June 5, 1905, to wit: 

To remove all possibility of killing branded seals in the fall on which the brands 
have become indistinct it will be necessary to prohibit the slaughter of any animal 
the skin of which weighs over 6 pounds. (Rept. Agt. Jas. Judge, p. 180; Appendix 
A; H. Com. Exp ; Dept. Com. & Labor, June 24, 1911.) 

Now, in the face of this distinct proof given him as above, that he 
must make a 6-pound maximum limit for food skins, or let the lessees 
continue to nullify the Hitchcock Rules, does W. I. Lembkey do so? 
Observe the following sworn statement by him that he does not — 
that he kills them all : 

Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lembkey. did you prohibit their killing them? 
Mr. Lembkey. I did. 
Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age? 
.Mr. Lembkey. I did. 
Mr. Elliott. In 1904? • 
Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 
Mr. Elliott. Did you do it in 1905? 
Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. How did you do it? You had no brand on them. 
Mr. Lembkey. By fixing a limit of 8£ pounds on the skins to be taken. (Hearing 
No. 9, p. 458, Apr. U, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THAT SWORN TESTIMONY WHICH DECLARES THIS 
GUILTY COLLUSION IN NULLIFYING THE HITCHCOCK RULES. 

Lembkey, February 4, 191 1, declares "the 'weight of a S year old 
skin is 7 pounds" and to " save the 3 year-olds" he has ordered "no 
slcins taken which are over 6\ founds." 

[Hearing No. 14, p. 907, July 25, 1912.] 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of the nullification of the Hitch- 
cock rules, with this evidence duly considered by your committee of the illegal 
killing of those yearling seals in 1910 (and that evidence of this guilt applies to every 
season's work on the Pribilof Islands ever since 1890 down to May 1, 1910), I desire to 
present the following testimony, which declares that ever since May 1, 1904, when 
the "Hitchcock rules" were first ordered by the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
those rules have been systematically and flagrantly violated by the agents of this 
department who were specially sworn to obey and enforce them. 

On February 4, 1911, Chief Special Agent Lembkey was introduced by Secretary 
Charles Nagel to the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National 
Resources, and during his examination by that committee he made the following 
statement, to wit, on page 14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, February 4, 1911, Com- 
mittee on Conservation of National Resources): 

" Dr. Hornaday. How many 'short 2-year-olds' were killed last year? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I do not understand your term. No seals under 2 years old, to 
my knowledge, were killed. 

" Dr. Hornaday. What would be the age of the smallest yearlings taken? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Two-year-olds rarely, if any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday, 
that a great difference of opinion exists between Mr. Elliott and the remaining people 
who understand this situation. There is a great gulf between their opinions, and 
it can never be reconciled on the question of the weights of skins of 2-year-olds. 

"Prof. Elliott. I will present my information in a moment. 

"Dr. Hornaday. The minimum weight is what? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds. During food drives made by the natives, when 
the seals killed are limited to 6\ pounds, in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds branded 
during the summer, you understand the natives do kill down a little more closely than 
our regulations allow, for the reason that they need the meat, and since they have to 
exclude all these fine, fat seals over 6% pounds they go for the little fellows a little more 
closely. 

"The Chairman. How many seals were killed last year for food by the natives? 



106 FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The limit was 2,500. Speaking offhand, I think about 2,300 
"were killed. 

"Q. Were any females killed? — A. No, sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated, 
I carefully interrogated these two gentlemen who had charge of this killing, and 
they stated that to their knowledge no female was killed. 

"Q. What class of males were killed by the nati ves for food? — A. Under 6\ pounds ■" 

Then, soon after stating that "6^ pound" limit, Lembkey admitted 
that he did not put that reservation down to "6% pounds" until 
proof had been given him, that an 8-§- pound skin limit did not spare 
those 3 year olds (and, he did not fix that limit even then), to wit: 

[Dixon Hearing, p. 19, Feb. 4, 1911.] 

Senator Heybtjrn. State the document and the page from which you read. 

Prof. Elliott. Senate Document No. 98, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session, page 
86. Here is the official report of Mr. W. I. Lembkey, in which the preservation and 
protection and conservation of this seal life, which he so graphically described to 
you a moment ago, is blown clear out of water by its own force of official denial. 

REPORT OF AGENT JAMES JUDGE. 

St. George Island, June 5, 1905. 
Dear Sir: I have the honor to submit the following report of affairs on St. George 
Island, covering the interval from August 14, 1904, to date: 



On October 7 Little East Rookery was carefully gone over for the purpose of counting 
dead pups, but none were found. 

At that season foxes in greater or less numbers are always present on the rookeries 
and quickly eat the pups or older animals that may happen to die. Pup skulls were 
frequently found during September in the rear of the rookeries, where they had 
undoubtedly been left by the foxes, the bodies having been devoured. 

Further counting of dead pups was therefore not attempted, as it seemed a disturb- 
ance of the seals to no good purpose. 

The first food drive was made October 19; killed, 59; dismissed, 6 large, 197 small, 
and 6 brands. Two of the latter were from St. Paul. While all brands were very 
faint, those made with shears were less discernible than those made with hot irons. 
Just the slightest-trace of a brand on one of the dead informed us that the wrong animal 
had been knocked down. The skin weighed 8 -pounds. That other S-year-olds branded in 
the spring, on which the fur had grown out so that the brand had become obliterated, were 
also killed is more than probable-, as 69 per cent of the dead skins weighed 7 pounds and 
over, the heaviest iveighing 9 pounds. 

Mr. Lembkey. May I interrupt the gentlemen just a second to ask whether the 
report does not state that Mr. Judge at once took measures to prevent the killing of any 
more of these branded seals by limiting the weights of skins to 6\ pounds, a practice which 
has been followed ever since? 

Did Lembkey tell the truth? No; he deliberately denies under oath, 
April 13, 1912, what he asserts as above in re a "6%-pound limit" and 
thus admits his guilt in the premises, as below, to wit: 

Mr. Elliott. Now, what follows, gentlemen of the committee — does he make that 
order of reservation? No; he actually nullifies it, and unwittingly confesses that mal- 
feasance in the following sworn statement made to your committee April 13 last, on 
page 458, Hearing No. 9, Lembkey affirms: 

"Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lembkey, did you prohibit killing them? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

"Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

"Mr. Elliott. In 1904? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

"Mr. Elliott. Did you do it in 1905? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

"Mr. Elliott. How did you do it? You had no brand on them. 

"Mr. Lembkey. By fixing a limit of 8h pounds on the skins to be taken.'' 



FUB-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



107 



Now, what has become of that " 6%-pound" 3-year-old limit by which he has sworn he 
" saved the 8-year-olds" in June and July, to be again "saved" by him as such in the 
autumn following by having this maximum limit of "6£ pounds" put on the taking 
of any "food skins"? Why, they are all killed. 

Mr. Madden. How many people are theie on the islands? 

Mr. Elliott. About 300; about 250 now. Why, those 3-year-olds so saved are all 
killed later in the season, and so killed as being under the limit of "8£ pounds"! He 
thus stupidly confesses to you, as above quoted, that he has nullified the very rules of 
the department that he was and is sworn to obey and enforce. 

The Hitchcock rules ordered a "permanent mark" to be put upon these reserved 
seals, "and under no circumstances are they to be taken," etc. Why was it not donef 
The answer is easy. The lessees wanted those skins, and they manipulated Lembkey as 
above — they got them. 1 

The natives made no mistake — not at all — "they took those 4- 
year-olds for 3-year-olds" just because the lessees' agents ordered 
them to do so. E. W. Clark is not telling all of the truth — only part 
of it, for good reasons of his own, perhaps! 

St. George Island, August 14, 1907. 
Dear Mr. Lembkey. If has occurred to me that you may wish a formal statement 
regarding the marking of the young male seals at this island for a breeding reserve. 
The following is a statement in detail: 



Date. 


Rookery. 


2 years 
old. 


3 vears 
old. 


4 years 
old. 


June 12 




29 
14 
14 
26 
68 
38 
11 


32 
14 
18 
28 
61 
37 
12 


20 


17 


North 


11 


19 




15 


20 




15 


21 


Staraya Artel 


6 


25 


East 


14 


27 




4 




Total 






200 


202 


85 









While the marking of 4-year-old seals is not enjoined. I deemed it wise to mark these 
which the natives caught, believing that if they would make the error of taking these 
seals for three years old when we were branding they were likely to make a similar 
error when we came to killing, and it was a good plan to render such seals immune 
for the season. 

Our selection of seals for breeding was of the first class, and the marks remain as 
conspicuous now as when first applied. 

Very respectfully, Ezra W. Clark, 

Assistant Agent in Charge. 



1 The manner in which they were "reserved" and then taken is set forth as follows: 

3. The reserve of bachelors. — Beginning with the season of 1904, there has been set aside each spring a 
special breeding reserve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years of age. These animals have been marked by 
clipping the head with sheep shears, giving them a whitish mark readily distinguishing them to the club- 
bers. They are carefully exempted on the killing field and released. 

This method of creating a breeding reserve seems open to considerable criticism, and has apparently been 
only moderately successful. The mark put upon the animal is a temporary one. The fur is replaced 
during the fall and winter, and the following spring the marked seals can not be recognized. The animals 
being 2 and 3 years of age are still killable the next season, the 2-year-olds in fact the second season. A new 
lot of 2,000 is clipped the next season, and these are carefully exempted, but, except in so far as animals 
of the previous season's marking are reclipped, they have no protection the second season, and without 
doubt are killed. 

If such is not the case, it is difficult to understand what becomes of them. (Report of G. A. Clark, p. 847, 
Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.) 



108 



EUE-SEAL HEED OE ALASKA. 



(Appendix A, p. 533, House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, June 24, 1911.) 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Lembkey says the 3-year-olds 
and other holluschickie are not 
driven out from shelter of the breed- 
ing cows. 

Chief Special Agent Lembkey: 

"Furthermore, the 3-year-olds, having 
passed the age of puberty, are not found 
on the hauling grounds during the fall, 
but are hauled among the cows on the 
rookeries when they can not be driven. 
This is an additional safeguard against 
their killing, and of itself would disprove 
any allegation that these marked seals are 
subsequently killed." (Report, Dec. 14, 
1906, S. Doc. 376, p. 13, 60th Cong, 1st 
sess.) 



But his assistant tells him that 
they are so "pulled out from among 
the cows." 



Assistant Agent James Judge: 

"Seals. — Four hundred and fifty-eight 
seals of the quota of 500 allowed the na- 
tives of this island for food were obtained. 
The first drive was made on October 19, 
from Staraya Artel, and 220 seals were 
killed; 209 small, sixty- five 3-year-olds, 
five 4-year-olds, six 5-year-olds, two 
6-year-olds, and 4 branded were turned 
away. Three other drives were made as 
follows: October 31, Staraya Artel rook- 
ery, 148 seals were killed; twelve 3-year- 
olds released; November 9, Staraya Artel 
and North, 44 seals killed; November 16, 
North rookery, 25 seals killed; October 20 
to November 10. Zapadni Guards, 21 seals 
killed. 

"The last three drives were made up 
entirely of seals pulled out from among 
the cows by the natives, and as very care- 
ful selection had taken place on the rook- 
ery very few were turned away from the 
killing field." (Report June 3, 1907, S. 
Doc. 376, p. 105, 60th Cong., 1st sess.) 



And in final and complete proof of this guilty knowledge possessed 
by Liebes, Lembkey, Evermann, and Bowers, as lessees and officials, 
that these "reserved" seals were being taken in violation of regula- 
tions, the deadly parallel is drawn upon them, thus : 



Lembkey declares that the reg- 
ulations " order no food skins taken 
over 6\ pounds"; and that he faith- 
fully obeys them: 



Mr. Lembkey: 

Notwithstanding repeated allegations to 
the contrary, the regulations of the depart- 
ment fully protect the breeding herd and these 
regulations are carefully and thoroughly 
observed. They require that no female or 
marked male should be killed, and no male 
seal having a pelt weighing less than 5 or 
more than 8^ pounds. During the food 
killing season of the fall and spring seals 
having skins weighing over 6\ pounds or 
under 5 pounds may not be taken, this 
extra limitation being enforced to prevent 
the killing of those males marked for breeding 
purposes after the new hair has grown in and 
obliterated the mark which is placed upon 
their hides at the beginning of the season. 



But Evermann furnishes the 
committee with copies of these 
regulations which order " no food 
skins taken over 8% pounds" — 
and thus confessing the deceit of 
Lembkey! (and himself also). 

Dr. Evermann: 

I wish to call particular attention to 
these paragraphs of the instructions re- 
garding reservations to be made: 

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.] 

Sec. 8. Sizes of killable seals. — No seals 
shall be killedhaving skins weighing less than 
5 pounds nor more than 8% pounds . Skins 
weighing more than 8£ pounds shall not be 
shipped from the islands, but shall be held 
there subject to such instructions as may 
be furnished you hereafter by the depart- 
ment. Skins weighing less than 5 pounds 
shall not be shipped from the islands, un- 
less, in your judgment, the number thereof 



TUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



109 



Mr. Madden. Right there, let me ask a 
question. 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden. I do not think it will 
interfere. You said that seals two or 
three years of age were killed? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden . And that no skin weighed 
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. More than 8^ pounds. 

Mr. Madden. Except during a certain 
period of the season when the higher weight 
was reduced to 6% pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden. What becomes of the 
seals more than 3 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are allowed to 
mature as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p. 
363, Feb. 29, 1912, House Com. Exp. Dept. 
Commerce and Labor.) 



is so small as to justify the belief that 
they have been taken only through un- 
avoidable accident, mistake, or error in 
judgment. 

Sec. 9. Killing season. — The killing 
season should begin as soon after the 1st of 
June as the rookeries are in condition for 
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the 
lessee later than July 31. No seals what- 
ever shall be taken during the stagey sea- 
son. The killing of pups for food for the 
natives, or for any other purpose, is not to 
be permitted. 

Sec. 10. Seals/or food. — The number of 
seals to be killed by the natives/or /oo(/ for 
the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, shall 
not exceed 1,700 on the island of St. Paul 
and 500 on the island of St. George, sub- 
ject to the same limitations and restrictions 
as apply to the killing of seals by the com- 
pany for the quota. Care should be taken 
that no branded seals be killed in the 
drives for food . 

[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.] 

Sec. 6. Quota. — Identical with instruc- 
tions of 1906. 

Sec 7. Reservation of young m,ales. — 
Identical with instructions of 1906. 

Sec. 8. Sizes of billable seals. — No seals 
shall be killed having skins weighing less 
than 5 pounds nor more than 8% pounds. 
Skins weighing less than 5 pounds or more 
than 8^ pounds shall not be shipped from 
the islands, but shall be held there subject 
to such instructions as may be furnished 
you hereafter by the department. 

Sec 9. Killing season. — The killing 
season should begin as soon after the 1st of 
June as the rookeries are in condition for 
driving. Seals shall not be killed by the 
lessee later than July 31. The killing of 
pups for food for the natives, or for any 
other purpose, is not to be permitted. 

Sec 10. Seals for food. — Identical with 
instructions of 1906. 

[Instructions issued Apr. 1, 1908.] 

Sec 6. Quota. — Identical with instruc- 
tions of 1907. 

Sec 7. Reservation of young males. — 
Identical with instructions of 1906 and 
1907. 

Sec 8. Sizes of billable seals. — Identical 
with instructions of 1907. 

Sec 9. Killing season. — Identical with 
instructions of 1907. 

Sec 10. Seals for food. — Identical with 
instructions for 1907. (Hearing No. 10,. 
pp. 483-484, Apr. 19, 1912, House Com. 
Exp. Dept. Commerce and Labor.) 



110 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

When the Hitchcock rules were first published the lessees were 
shocked, and at once took Lembkey to task — how could he do such 
an act ? 

Lembkey tells them that Elliott did it — that HE was not to blame, and 
that Elliott was the "pest" that prevented LembTcey from fully serving 
Liebes. Under examination April 13, 1912, he testifies — 

[Hearing No. 9, p._,455.] 

Mr. Elliott (reads from Lembkey 's letter to Hitchcock, May 20, 1904): 

"When I pointed out that my instructions were not discretionary, he stated that 
he would at once protest to the department. He requested that I inform him by 
official letter of the requirement, which I did, and, at his urgent request, inclosed a 
copy of your letter. I have taken pains to explain to him the situation that existed 
in Washington last winter, and that the attitude of the department is not one of hos- 
tility to the company, but necessary to avoid sinister results." 

Mr. Lembkey. Sinister results? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. [Reading:] 

"While admitting in one breath 'a knowledge of the Elliott campaign ' " 

You told him I did this thing, did you not? 

Mr. Lembkey. I certainly did. 

Mr. Elliott. I am glad you did . 

Mr. Lembkey. I told him that you were the greatest pest the department ever had. 

Mr. Elliott. I am glad to hear that. That is music to me. 

Before this order was made, May 1, 1904, we find Lembkey busy 
with Jordan and working with Liebes for the illegal killing of small 
seals. 

Lembkey tried to prevent the "5^-pounds limit" being ordered in 
1904, and confesses the attempt, under cross-examination to the 
committee, thus — 

[Hearing No. 9, p t 449, Apr. 13, 191?.] 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the Hitchcock rules were first published, I believe. 
Have they been changed since then? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, they have. 

Mr. Elliott. As to killing any seal under 2 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not so far as to killing any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906 they 
were changed so as to make the minimum iveight 5 instead of5\ pounds. 

Mr. Elliott. Why did the department fix 5\ pounds in 1906 f 

Mr. Lembkey. Now you are asking me something, Mr. Elliott, I do not believe I 
am qualified to answer; just how the department arrived at an opinion of that kind 
would hardly be a question for me to testify to. 

Mr. Elliott. You were not consulted? 

Mr.. Lembkey. I was not consulted when the order was written. 

Mr. Elliott. That is all I wanted to get at, sir. In 1900 and 

Mr. Lembkey. I will state, however, that I made a recommendation to the effect that the 
weight be decreased from 5\ pounds to 5 pounds, if that is what you have reference to. 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, you did. Did you make that recommendation in 1904? 

Mr. Lembkey. If I remember correctly I recommended to Mr. Hitchcock that the mini- 
mum weight in 1904 be fixed at 5 pounds. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; and Mr. Hitchcock overruled you. 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not say that he overruled me. He fixed the weight, according 
to his published statement, at 5\ pounds so that there would be absolutely no question as to 
the fact that the seals taken were over 2 years of age. 

Mr. Elliott. Were "not under 2 years of age?" 

Mr. Lembkey. Over 2 years of age. 

Mr. Elliott. Does not this regulation say "under 2 years of age?" 

Mr. Lembkey. I guess we are talking about the same thing only we do not recognize 
it. He said there should be no question of the fact that the skins taken were over 2 
years of age. I presume that is what you mean, too. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. Ill 

Finding that they could not get any change in the rules < f May 1, 
1904, ordered, so that they might be easier to nullify on the islands 
(for nullify them the lessees at once did), they sets to work and 
Lembkey got busy with Liebes in planning a change in the rules of the 
Hitchcock Order of May 1 , 1904, which prevented them from taking year- 
lings, without a good deal of trouble. 

They succeeded in 1906, after Hitchcock left the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, and not until then. 

After Mr. Hitchcock went into the Postmaster General's office, 
March, 1905, Lembkey succeeded in lowering the minimum 5^-peund 
standard weight sot by "Hitchccck rules," to 5 pounds by March 9, 
1906, and so took the "yearlings" for the lessees, easier, as "2-year- 
old male seals," and falsely certified them as such! The lessees not 
only objected to the oh-pound, limit which shut out the yearlings, but 
the)/ claimed the right to Mil edl the ^-y^ar-oWs « s well! as shown by the 
following testimony in'Hearing No. 9, p. 4-54, April IS, 1912, to wit: 

Mr. Elliott. When these Hitchcock rules were published in 1904, and you went out to 
San Francisco, was any protest made to you by the lessees? 

Mr. Lembkey. You know perfectly well that there was, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. What did you tell them, Mr. Lembkey? 

Mr. Lembkey. Perhaps since you have in mind my report for 1904 which makes 
mention of those protests from the company, I had better refer to those so that the com- 
mittee may know just exactly what was done. On page 81 of Appendix A of these 
hearings in which is published my annual report as agent in charge of the seal fisheries 
tor the year 1904 I discuss the following under the subheading "protests from the 
company " : 

"While the North American Commercial Co. complied in every particular this sum- 
mer with the regulations of the department, I received frsim its officers several protests 
against the department's action in restricting the catch of the company." 

This report is addressed to Mr. Hitchcock: 

"Upon receipt of your letter of May 12 last prescribing a 5^-pound limit on 2-year-old 
skins, I notified Mr. Taylor, the president of the company, of the contents of the letter. 
He at once entered a vigorous protest. Upon my informing him that I had no option 
in the matter, he appealed directly to the department, and held the company's vessel 
in Sausalito for half a day until the receipt of the department's reply. With that mat- 
ter, however, you are familiar. 

"Upon arrival at the islands, while discussing the coming season's work with Mr. 
Redpath, the company's general agent, I mentioned the prohibition against the killing 
of 4-year-olds, and stated that, to give effect to this prohibition, I would place a limit 
on large skins of from 8J to 9 pounds. Mr. Redpath at once expressed surprise at the 
existence of this prohibition and entered a vigorous protest against any interference 
with the killing of 4-year-olds. He produced a copy of the department's instructions 
to me and quoted from the clause relating to the restriction of killing in support of his 
argument." 

Then finding that there was an easy way to nullify these " reserva- 
tions" of the Hitchcock Rules, the lessees quickly used a pair of 
sheep shears and "branded" the "spared" seals as follows: All this 
done with the servile collusion of the agents of the Government: 

To provide a definite reserve of male life for breeding purposes the agents tell me 
they drove up in the early part of the season, and before killing was begun by the 
company, 2,000 bachelor seals of 2 and 3 years of age and shaved their heads with sheep 
shears, thus marking them so that they can be identified by the clubbers and exempted 
on the killing field. These shaved heads constitute a large part of the animals turned 
back at each killing. It is to be noted that among those turned back without brand 
there are none which show evidence of the clipping of last season. It may be inferred, 
therefore, that the fur and water hair is replaced during the winter. The identification 
mark is not a permanent thing, but one designed to serve for the current killing season. 
To insure these animals exemption for breeding purposes next year they must be again 
shaved next June. 



112 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

In the killing this morning it may be noted that 27 animals with shaved heads, 
designated as 3-year-olds, were released, but of the unbranded animals released only 
5 are designated as 4-year-olds. It is only a supposititious case, but if we assume that 
twenty-seven 3-year-olds were exempted by the shaving of last season, here are only 
5 that have successfully run the gauntlet of the second year. 

In a word the marking of a 2 or 3 year old seal by a temporary mark which is obliter- 
ated by the following season, the animal still being killable as a 3 or 4 year old, is futile 
for the purpose of establishing a breeding reserve. 

There is another criticism that may justly be brought against this method of marking; 
that is, clipping or shaving the head — it does not in any way impair the value of the 
skin. Undoubtedly this is a provision to prevent loss through carelessness. If a 
clubber accidently strikes a shaved seal its skin is as good as any other, and such 
accidents occur, although infrequently. 

The criticism, however, lies in this: The skin is just as valuable to the pelagic sealer 
as if it were not marked. The shaving of the head is a good plan for identification by 
the clubber. It would be unwise to attempt to burn a brand on the seal at this point, 
but while the animal is caught for the purpose of shaving, a permanent burned brand 
should be placed on the back or shoulder which will mar the value of the skin to the 
pelagic sealer. If it mars the value of the skin also from the company's point of view, 
then greater care should be taken in clubbing the animals. The present plan puts a 
premium on carelessness, and an animal exempted this season is liable to be killed 
next season. The only way to prevent this is to shave the head of this year's 2-year-old 
next year as a 3-year-old, and again as a 4-year-old the third season; all of which is a 
useless waste of energy. ('Report Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 885, 886; Appen- 
dix A, June 24, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 

In getting the Hitchcock minimum limit of u 5\ pounds" reduced to 
"5 pounds" Lemblcey and Liebes succeeded in getting it done without any 
warrant, in 1 906, and so confess it, when cross-examined, to wit: 

[Hearing No. 9, pp. 449-451, 450, April 13, 1912.] 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, when you made that statement in 1901, you went to 
Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5-pound limit. What did he tell you in 1904? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember just what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. Did he not tell you that you were talcing yearling shins? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; he told me that you had made the charge that we were taking 
yearling skins. 

Mr. Elliott. Was he not impressed with the fact that you were taking yearling 
skins? 

Mi-. Lembkey. No, he was not. 

Mr. Elliott. Yet he fixed the limit five and one-half pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. He did it solely as I have stated — to place the limit so high that you 
nor any other man could make any objection to the policy of the department. 

Mr. Elliott. That was very correct on his part, was it not? 

The Chairman. Never mind about that. 

Mr. Elliott. When Mr. Hitchcock left the department who succeeded him? 

Mr. Lembkey. As chief clerk? I think Mr. Bowen did. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Bowen. Did you again renew your recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember that I recommended that the weight be reduced 
to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. That order of reduction was made in 1906? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1906. 

Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk then? 

Mr. Lembkey. I presume Mr. Bowen was. 

Mr. Elliott. And you again made the recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no. The recommendation was made, I think, to 
the Secretary, but it was made through Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, who 
then had charge of the seal business. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you any table of weight measurement of your own making which 
warranted you in making that recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed that as my opinion. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. ' 113 

THE "SALT WEIGHT" DECEPTION BY LEMBKEY, IN 1904; REPEATED BY 
MARSH, 1011; AND SWORN TO, BY EVERMANN, JULY 30, 1912, IN 
ORDER TO DECEIVE AND FALSIFY THE RECORD OF KILLING YEARLING 
SEALS. 

The trick. — He "shakes all the salt off," then weighs them after six 
dans' curing. 

[P. 79.— Appendix A; Lembkey, Sept. 7, 1904.] 
EXPERIMENTS IX WEIGHTS OF SALTED SKIXS. 

In connection with the weighing of individual skins on the killing- held, it was 
thought wise to determine whether or not skins gained or lost weight after being salted. 
Should any discrepancy of this kind occur, the weights of these skins in London 
would not coincide with those taken on the islands. 

On July 17, 107 skins taken at Tolstoi were weighed individually, and, after being 
immersed in salt water to keep them moist during the journey from the field to the 
salt house, were salted. Their aggregate weight on the field before wetting was 705 
pounds. On July 23 they were taken out of salt and reweighed, when their aggregate 
weight was 759^ pounds, a gain of 54^ pounds on 107 skins, or one-half pound a skin. 
-4s the salt was thoroughly shaken off these skins, the accretion of water from dipping 
them in the lagoon may be represented by the gain in weight. 

On July 26 1 weighed 100 skins, nearly dry. on a platform scales at the salt house, 
finding them to weigh 644J pounds. They were then salted. On July 30 they were 
hauled out of salt and reweighed. when their combined weight was 643$ pounds, a 
loss of 1 pound on 100 skins. These may be taken as typical to show the effect of 
salt and water upon skins. I was not able to experiment with perfectly dry skins 
after the date mentioned, but I believe the latter will show a slight loss of weight 
after being in salt for a period. 

Very truly, yours, W. I. Lembkey. 

Agent in Charge Seal Fisheries. 
Air. F. U. Hitchcock, 

Chief Clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor. 

Lembkey has not truthfully stated this experiment: He made the 
following entry himself, in the official journal of his office on St. Paul 
Island and did not water those skins, then {that was an afterthought) 
he does not shake off all the salt, either. (P. 149.) 

SATURDAY, JULY 23, 1904. 

On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed and salted. To-day they 
were hauled out of the kench and reweighed. At the time of killing they weighed 
705 pounds, and on being taken out they weighed 759^ pounds, a gain in salting of 
54§ pounds, or one-half pound per skin. 

Then, Lembkey swears, April 13, 1912, that he has never weighed 
tlu.se skins after salting. — (p. 446 Hearing No. 9, H. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. & Labor.) 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, you say you have never weighed 
these skins after you have salted them ? You have never weighed 
them '? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have never weighed them after the salting on the 
islands; no, sir. 

Lembkey's trick is repeated by Marsh and Evermann, 8 years 
later. (Hearing No. 14; pp. 974, 975; July 29, 1912.) 

Dr. Evermann. Last year, when Mr. M. C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went 
to the Pribilof Islands, he was instructed to make certain investigations, one of which 
was to determine by actual experiment the effect that salting has upon the weight of 
fur-seal skins. He made a very careful investigation of the matter, and his report 

21588—13 8 



114 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

has just been received. It is so interesting and valuable that I wish to put it in the 
record. His investigation settles the question conclusively and for all time. It shows 
that salting causes fur-seal skins to lose iceight. The report is as follows: 

******* 

" The average loss of weight for the whole 60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces. This 
is an understatement of the average loss of weight, which, I believe, is at least an ounce 
greater. The reason is that it is practically impossible to mechanically remove all the 
salt from the skins before reweighing. They were shaken, swept, and brushed, but a few 
grains and crystals of salt were always left adhering to each side of the skin. Obviously 
it would not do to wash them off. By more carefully cleaning a few of the re- 
weighed skins and then again weighing them, I estimate this residual salt to average 
an ounce or something more." 

Against the above, observe the following facts, to wit: 
In the village salt house, St. Paul Island, July 29, 1913, 400 fur- 
seal skins which had been taken July 7, 1913, weighed "green," and 
put into salt there, were taken out of the kench, salted, and bun- 
dled for shipment, and then weighed. This weighing declared the 
fact that the salt-cured skins had been increased over their "green" 
weights all the way from a minimum of one-half pound to a maxi- 
mum of l.| pounds per skin. (See table of 400 skins; pp. 102-105; 
Rept. Spl. Agents; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913.) 

SELF-CONFESSED OFFICIAL DECEIT IN RE YEARLING SEALSKINS. 

To show that Mr. Lembkey in his report to the Secretary of Com- 
merce for 1904 was deliberately deceiving the department as to the 
srze and weight of yearling sealskins, the following deadly parallel on 
himself is drawn, since it is of his own making. 

On September 7, 1904, Lembkey says in his official report (p. 77. 
Appendix A) : K 

On July 1 there were 3 yearling seals in the drives at Northeast Point. One of them, 
a typical specimen, was knocked clown at my direction to ascertain the weight of the 
skin. It was found to be a female. The carcass before sticking weighed 34 pounds, 
and the skin taken off hurriedly, with considerable loose blubber adhering, weighed 
4| pounds. The removal of this loose blubber left the skin weighing only 3| pounds. 

While no further effort was made to determine the weight of yearling skins, 
this instance shows that the skins of this class of animals are far below the limit of 
weight now prescribed by the department, and are too small to have appeared in 
the company's catch at any time, except by an accident in clubbing. 

Then, on April 13, 1912, to the House committee, he testifies that 
he knows that yearling sealskins weigh from 4 to 4f pounds (see p. 
435, Hearing No. 9), to wit: 

Mr. Lembkey. As I stated to the committee, I knew nothing whatever about the 
measurements. 

Mr. Elliott. How do you know anything about the weights? 

Mr. Lembkey. Because I have taken the weights. 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, you have? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have taken the weights on the island of all sealskins weighed there. 

Mr. Elliott. You have? I want to call your attention to this, and the attention of 
the committee. You say you have taken note of the weights? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have testified before the committee that every skin taken on the 
islands except a few that inadvertently were omitted were weighed there. 

Mr. Elliott. What is the weight of a yearling fur-seal skin? 

Mr. Lembkey. I weighed very few yearling skins, but they would usually run up 
to 4 or 4| pounds. 

On April 13, 1912, when under oath before the House Committee 
on Expenses in the Department of Commerce and Labor, Mr. Lembkey 
testified that the length of a yearling seal of his own identification 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



115 



and measurement was 39^ inches, thus (p. 442, Hearing No. 9, House 
Committee on Expenses in the Department of Commerce and Labor; 
Hearing No. 10, pp. 639, 640, May 2, 1912): 

Dr. Evermann. Do you know that Mr. Fraser states that the process of dressing 
skins instead of stretching them rather shrinks them? 

Mr. Elliott. No; he hasn't said so anywhere. Now, Mr. Lembkey said, on page 
442, that he had measured a yearling seal — three of them. He says here [reading]: 

" Mr. Lembkey. The length of a yearling seal on the animal would be from the tip 
of the nose to the root of the tail, 39i inches in one instance and 39£ inches 
in another 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

"Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another. I measured only three. 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes." 

Do you dispute those measurements? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not dispute them. 

Here we have the Bureau of Fisheries joining in with Lembkey in 
declaring that the length of a yearling seal is 39 h inches. Now, Mr. 
Lembkey, on page 4*43, Hearing No. 9, tells the committee that the 
length of the skin of this yearling seal as he (Lembkey) removes it 
is 36| inches long, thus: 

Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a yearling skin to be 35 inches long? 

Mr. Lembkey. No; if it was 3!H inches long it would leave it 36£ inches. That is, 
all of the animal, from the tip of the nose to the root of the tail, would be 3W inches 
long. Three inches off that would leave 36^ inches. 

Now, what is the weight of Mr. Lembkey's yearling skin which he 
has taken and declared to be 36^ inches long? He tells the depart- 
ment on September 7, 1904, in a carefully prepared report, as quoted 
above, that it is "only 3| pounds." 

Is he telling the truth? Observe the following part of list of 400 
tagged 32-36-inch long skin weights which he made himself July 7, 
1913, on St. Paul Island, and affixing the tags thereto himself, 
declaring those weights duly registered by himself: 



Record of seals taken and weights recorded of sJcins, 

Lembkey. 



July 7, 1913, made by W. J. 



Tagged No. of skin. 


Green weight 

of skin. 


Measurements 

(length) of 

these same 

skins (taken 

and weighed 

by Lembkey), 

niade July 29, 

1913, by Elliott 

and Gallagher. 


4623 


Lbs. 
5 
7 
6 
6 
8 
5 
4 
6 
8 


0:s. 

Hf 

ll 1 , 
10' 

11 

IS* 

3', 

1 

71 


32 


4318 


34 


4273 


34 


4406 


34 


4294 


36 


4246 


31 


4244 


32 


4751 


32 


4275 


32 







The above citation of a few of the 400 tagged and weighed skins 
which are all given in extenso by the agents of the House Committee 
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce, August 31, 1913, 
shows that Mr. Lembkey deliberately deceived the department, Sep- 
tember 7, 1904, when he declared that he "determined the weight of 
a yearling sealskin" to be "3| pounds." % 



116 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

That these measurements are reliable when made "in the salt," 
Mr. Lembkey testifies at length to the House Committee on Expen- 
ditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor; Hearing No. 10; 
pages 399-340, as follows: 

Mr. Lembkey. I have attempted to state that in measuring a green skin it is im- 
possible to find out its exact length when you lay it on the ground, because it may 
curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can only be measured after it has become hardened 
by salt. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then it will not stretch? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly not. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. That is the proper time to measure it, after it has become rigid 
and stiff? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. You can not then stretch or shrink it? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. With an honest measurement of that kind of skin, would it not 
determine the age? 

Mr. Lembkey. I fancy, yes. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. Is there any doubt about it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not think so. I say, fancy, because I never attempted to judge 
of age by the measurements. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. In that way, if anybody wanted to, they could not deceive, 
because you say they could not stretch it? 

Mr. Lembkey. You could not stretch it after it had been salted four or five days, 
because the skin then is not very pliable. 

Mr. McGillictjddy. Then it is your idea that measurement is reliable after a certain 
number of days? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, after it has been in salt, but when the skin is green it would 
not be a reliable test. 

Those measurements of Mr. Lembkey's yearling skins (31-36^-inch 
skins), as taken and weighed by himself, July 7, 1913, were made in 
the salt-house kench of St. Paul Island, in the presence of Messrs. 
Hatton, Clark, Whitney, and Lembkey, of the Bureau of Fisheries, 
and Messrs. Elliott and Gallagher for the House Committee on Expen- 
ditures in the Department of Commerce; they were all agreed upon 
as correct when taken and recorded, July 29, 1913, by the gentlemen 
above named. 

AN EXHIBIT OF THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LES- 
SEES OF THE SEAL ISLANDS OF ALASKA AND CERTAIN OFFICIALS 
OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND BUREAU OF FISHERIES, 1890-1905, 
IN PROMOTING A FRAUDULENT CLAIM AT THE HAGUE, JUNE, 1902. 

THE COMMUNITY OF INTEREST EXISTING BETWEEN THE SEAL LESSEE. LIEBES, AND THIRD 
ASSISTANT SECRETARY, H. H. D. PEIRCE, UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT, IN 
THE BUSINESS OP PIRATICAL PELAGIC SEALING, AS COVERED BY THEIR ASSOCIATION 
WITH ALEXANDER M'LEAN, AND HIS EMPLOYMENT BY LIEBES, CULMINATING IN 1905. 

The sworn record of that association of McLean with Liebes begins 
in 1890, as follows. He was, during seasons of — 

1890. In command of the /. Hamilton Leiois; H. Liebes, owner; raids Copper Island 
and <?ets off, August 1, with two men badly hurt. 

1891. In command of the ./. Hamilton Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding Copper 
Island with the crew of the E. E. Webster, owned by H. Liebes and commanded by his 
brother; vessel confiscated and he is imprisoned at Vladivostok a few weeks. 

1892. In command of the Rosa Sparks, sealing schooner of San Francisco; no raids 
this year. 

1893. In command of the steam sealer Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is 
caught by the U. S. S. Mohican raiding Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July, but 
escapes in the fog because the war vessel's engines were disabled. 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 117 

The Alexander was owned by Isaac and Herman Liebes up to 
December 21, 1893. In November, 1893, Liebes's attorneys, Jeffries 
and Tingle, filed claims against Russia for damages in re seizure of the 
James Hamilton Lewis; those claims were put up to the United 
States State Department in the name of a "dummy" owner ("Max 
Waizman") and Alexander McLean, as an "American citizen law- 
fully engaged," etc. McLean's record since 1893, follows. He was 
during — 

L89 f to 1902. In command of various pelagic vessels, but under restraint from the 
lessees, since the claim of the ./. Hamilton Leiris id being prepared and pressed, up to 
iis successful end November 29. 1902. at The Hague. 

L896. He appears as a "true American" before the claims award commission, which 
sits at Victoria in settlement, of damage suits against the United Spates Government 
for seized sealers and vessels in 18*J(i-18S9; he testifies, "at the peril of his life," for the 
American commissioners as to the value of the British boats seized. (SeeRept. 2128, 
Senate bill 3410, 58th Oong., 2d sess.) lie is in truth working for the highest figures 
obtainable from the United States Treasury, instead of the lowest. 

1903. He can not be pteced with certainty this year. 

1904. He raids Copper Island August 2. in the ".Mexican" schooner Cerveneita: one 
of his men seriously shot. 

1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul Island. Northeast Point, but is driven off, he is 
sailing in the Acapulco, and defies arrest by United States agents, for he is a British 
subject; at Victoria British Columbia, in October, 1905. 

Y\ hy did McLean defy arrest 1 Why was he undisturbed at 
Victoria? V hy, ^hen he had been indicted, August 19, 1905, in the 
United States District Court of California, San Francisco, charged 
with conspiracy to defraud the United States Government, under 
section 5440, Revised Statutes ? 

It was because the United States State Department, when asked 
(Sept, 16 and Oct 16, 1905) by the United States consul at Victoria, 
Abraham E. Smith, to authorize and instruct him (Smith) to demand 
the arrest and extradition of Alexander McLean, agreeably to the 
terms of that above-cited indictment of August 19, 1905, refused 
to so ''instruct" Consul Smith. The United States district attorney 
(Devlin), of the California District Court, had also asked (Sept. 7, 1905) 
Consul Smith to demand the arrest and extradition of McLean; but 
Smith replied that unless the State Department ordered this action 
on his part, he would not move in the matter — that he could not. 

But Smith, nevertheless, did address a request in September (16th) 
to H. H. D. Peirce, (as Acting Secretary or) Assistant Secretary of 
State, for authority to make this demand on the British authorities 
at Victoria for McLean's arrest and extradition. Peirce made no 
answer. On October 16, 1905, Smith again called Peirce's attention 
to this fact, that McLean was still in Victoria, under indictment at 
San Francisco, but "unless specially instructed by the department 
to demand extradition," he, Smith, will not move in the premises 
(despite the urgent request that he do so, as made by United States 
District Attorney Devlin, of California), and that up to date (Oct. 
16, 1905) "no such instruction has been received, and, therefore, the 
whole affair appears to be closed." 

Now, why did Peirce, as Acting Secretary of State, when the 
United States consul, Smith, first asked him to authorize this demand 
for McLean's extradition (September, 1905), decline to do so and 
then so influence the Attorney General's office in Washington as to 
have the hint given Devlin in San Francisco that McLean could not 
be extradited, "according to the State Department," for this offense, 



118 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

etc.; that he (McLean) "must be arrested by a British officer of the 
patrol fleet," etc. ? 

The reason is found in the report of the House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, No. 1425, 
Sixty-second Congress, third session, page 4, to wit: 

In 1893 proceedings were commenced in the State Department, claiming damages 
on the part of owners, master, and crew of the James Hamilton Lewis. H. H. D. 
Peirce and Charles H. Townsend, "sealing experts," of the United States Bureau of 
Fisheries, prepared the cases for the parties interested and presented the claim on 
the part of the United States against the Russian Government at The Hague in 1902, 
which resulted in an award of approximately $50,000 in favor of the United States 
Government for the use of the parties interested, including Alexander McLean and 
Max Weismah, November 29, 1902. The said H. H. D. Peirce and Charles H. Town- 
send presented the claim of Max Weisman as the owner of the vessel James Hamilton 
Tjetvis before the tribunal at The Hague, when in truth and in fact the owner of said 
schooner at the time of its seizure was Herman Liebes, of San Francisco. The said 
H. H. D. Peirce and Charles H. Townsend represented to the tribunal in the trial of 
said case that Alexander McLean, the captain of said vessel, was an American citizen, 
when in truth and fact he was a British subject and notoriously known as a pirate. 
(See pp. 754, 755, Hearing No. 12.) 

In Hearing No. 13, page 831, June 20, 1912, House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, is the 
following: 

STATEMENT OF ISAAC LIEBES. 

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman. 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Liebes. Isaac Liebes. 

The Chairman. Where do yoa live? 

Mr. Liebes. In San Francisco. 

The Chairman. And what is your business? 

Mr. Liebes. I am a merchant. 

The Chairman. What kind of business as a merchant do you conduct? 

Mr. Liebes. Fur business, and I am also connected with the salmon business. I 
am vice president of the Northern Navigation Co., Northern Commercial Co., director 
in the North American Commercial Co., and I am connected with 9 or 10 other cor- 
porations in San Francisco. 

The men indicted August 19, 1905, in re " ' Acapulco" in the United 
States District Court of San Francisco, were Alexander McLean, R. 
J. Tyson, S. E. R. de Saint, W. J. Wood, and W. J. Woodside, 
charged with conspiracy under section 5440, Revised Statutes. 

In Hearing No. 4, page 184, July 11, 1911, House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, is the 
following sworn record of — 

THE PROGRESSION OF CAPT. ALEXANDER M'LEAN AS AN "AMERICAN CITIZEN." 

1890. In command of the J. Hamilton Lewis; H. Liebes, owner; raids Copper 
Island and gets off, August 1, with two men badly hurt. 

1891. In command of the /. Hamilton Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding 
Copper Island with the crew of the E. E. Webster, owned by H. Liebes and com- 
manded by his brother; vessel confiscated and he is imprisoned at Vladivostok a 
few weeks. 

1892. In command of the Rosa SparJcs, sealing schooner of San Francisco; no raids 
this year. 

1893. In command of the steam sealer Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is 
caught by the U. S. S. Mohican raiding Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July, 
but escapes in the fog because the war vessel's engines were disabled. 

1894 to 1902. In command of various pelagic vessels, but under restraint from the 
lessees, since the claim of the /. Hamilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed, up 
to its successful end November 29, 1902, at The Hague. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 119 

1896. He appears as a "true American" before the claims award commission, 
which sits at Victoria, in settlement of damage suits against the United Slates Gov- 
ernment for seized sealers and vessels in 1866-18S9; he testifies, "at the peril of his 
life," for the American commissioners as to the value of the British boats seized. 
(See Rept. 2128. Senate bill 3410. 58th Cong.. 2d sess.^i He is in truth working for 
the highest figures obtainable from the United States Treasury, instead of the lowest. 

1903. He can not be placed with certainty this year. 

1904. He raids Copper Island August 2. in the "Mexican" schooner Cervencita; 
one of bis men seriously shot- 

1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off; 
he is sailing in the Acapulco, and defies arrest by United States agents, for he is a 
British subject; at Victoria, British Columbia, in October, 1905. 

1906. He raids St. Paul Island July 16-17, with a Japanese outfit; five Japs killed, 
and 12 prisoners taken; there is a fleet engaged in this raid, which attacked five 
rookeries at once and on the same days; they got away from all of them, except North- 
east Point, with seals and no casualties. 

The Alexander was owned by Herman Liebes up to December 30, 
1891 ; then transferred to "H. Liebes & Co.," and owned until Decem- 
ber 27, 1893; then transferred to Pacific Trading Co., in which Liebes 
was a director. 

The E. E. Webster, owned by Herman Liebes up to October 21, 
1893; then transferred as " owned" by dummy ''Max Waizman" to 
the Pacific Trading Co. 

The Acapulco was outfitted in San Francisco, March 5, 1904, and 
her captain, McLean, was indicted for conspiracy there, August 19, 
1905: he was charged with ''equipping and furnishing supplies" for 
the Acapulco in San Francisco Bay, in May, 1905. 

During the trial of McLean's associates in the southern district Cali- 
fornia court, Capt. Alexander Woodside, president of the "Pacific 
Trading Co.," was unable to give to the court the names of the directors 
of his company. ''Ten barrels of beef" had been supplied to the 
Acapulco by the ''Pacific Trading Co.," and the court wanted to find 
out who were the responsible men in its organization. 

In re Herman and Isaac Liebes, as lessees, buying pelagic sealskins : 
1890-1911. 

Who was the Victorian agent of the Liebes, after Moss "died" in 
1893? 

In 1892, Morris Moss, of Victoria, B. C, made oath that he was the 
resident agent of H. Liebes & Co. (of San Francisco) and that he 
"bought from ten to twenty thousand pelagic fur sealskins annually" 
for Liebes. 

On June 20, 1912, Isaac Liebes, under oath, made the following eva- 
sive and shii'ty, if not wholly false, answers to the questions as stated 
below (Hearing' No. 13, p. 881, June 20, 1912, ilouse Commfttee 
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor): 

The Chairman. Do you know Morris Moss? 

Mr. Liebes. I did know him; yes. 

The Chairman. Was he connected with your firm at any time? 

Mr. Liebes. He used to be a buyer in Victoria at one time for II. Liebes A: I '■>. — 1 
think about 25 years ago. I think he has been dead twenty-odd years. 

The Chairman. Who succeeded him for you? 

Mr. Liebes. He never had a successor there. 

The Chairman. Where was he from? 

Mr. Liebes. He was a resident of Victoria: I do not know where from. 

The Chairman. Then he bought skins for you at Victoria? 

Mr. Liebes. He bought all kinds of skins for H. Liebes & Co., mostly land furs, 
beaver, mink, otter, and those things. 

The Chairman. And sealskins, too? 

Mr. Liebes. He might have done so; I do not. remember any sealskins, but possibly 
in tho*e early days he might have bought some. 



120 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

If Liebes tells the truth, Moss must have died almost immediately 
after this sworn deposition in 1892 was made by him as above cited 
and quoted in volume 5, Proceedings Tribunal Arbitration, 1893, 
pages 670, 671. 

Liebes swears that Moss, who "died" in 1893, had no successor for 
his place as the "resident agent of H. Liebes & Co." He asks the 
committee to believe that a business of ''buying from ten to twenty 
thousand pelagic fur sealskins annually" from the hunters at Vic- 
toria, B. C., was abandoned by the Liebes when Moss died. (Vol. 
2, Proceedings Tribunal Arbitration, 1893, p. 341; see Morris Moss's 
deposition.) 

That Liebes had not only had an agent in Victoria bus} T in buying 
pelagic sealskins, but also, like Moss, a member of the Victoria Seal- 
ers' Association, immediately after Moss's death up to the day that 
the Hay-Elliot treaty went into effect, December 15, 1911, will be 
found a matter of business record in Victoria when a competent 
search for it is made. 

H. H. D. Peirce under oath admits that he knew that the Liebes 
were the owners of the James Hamilton Lewis. (Hearing No. 13, 
pp. 779-782, May 29, 1911, House Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and Labor.) This admission is made by 
him, to wit: 

The Committee on Expenditures in the 

Department op Commerce and Labor, 

House op Representatives, 

Wednesday, May 29, 1912. 

The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OP MR. H. H. D. PEIRCE. 

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman. 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Mr. Peirce. Herbert Henry Davis Peirce. 

The Chairman. What is your profession? 

Mr. Peirce. I am a diplomat. 

The Chairman. Well, you are a lawyer by profession? 

Mr. Peirce. An international lawyer; I am not a member of the bar. 

The Chairman. What is your present occupation? 

Mr. Peirce. I am one of the counsel for the Government in the American-British 
Claims Arbitration. 

The Chairman. What was your position with the Government some years ago? 

Mr. Peirce. I was first secretary of legation at St. Petersburg, and after it became 
an embassy, secretary of embassy. I was the Third Assistant Secretary of State. 

The Chairman. You may tell the committee what the real issue was before the tri- 
bunal as to the James Hamilton Lewis case. 

Mr. Peirce. The Russian Government had seized the James Hamilton Lewis for 
poaching, as they call it, seals on the Copper Island. The James Hamilton Lewis was 
arrested outside of the 3-mile limit. She was on her way; the captain alleged that 
the weather was thick, and that he had proceeded to Copper Island in order to get his 
bearing — whether that is true or not I do not know, but it was a thing disputed — and 
there was lying off around the southern extremity of Copper Island a Russian cruiser 
which the master of the James Hamiltdn Lewis could not see, and as he came up toward 
the island he must have been pretty well within the 3-mile limit, for if he saw the 
vessel he certainly could have seen the island; the cruiser came around the point, and 
then McLean, who was the master of the James Hamilton L<ewis, turned tail and sailed 
away. 

The cruiser pursued her and pursued her beyond the 3-mile limit and there seized 
her. I claimed for the owners and officers and crew that her presence in Russian 
waters was innocent, that there was no corpus delicti, that she had gone there for a 
perfectly reasonable purpose, and was merely exercising the rights that any vessel 
had, and that her pursuit and capture beyond the 3-mile limit was a violation of her 
right to sail upon any sea. 



FUE-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 121 

Tj e Chairman. It was decided, tl en. that si e was not in Russian waters? 

Mr. Peirce. T! e arbitrator accepted absolutely my argument. 

The Chairman. In order to sustain your argument, it was necessary to prove that 
the master was an American citizen and that the vessel was owned by American 
citizens'.' 

Mr. Peirce. Yes. 

TI e Chairman. Wl o was the master'.' 

Mr. Peirce. One Alexander McLean. 

The Chairman. Can you tell from memory whether the Russians found some seal- 
skins wi en b. e was captured? 

Mr. Peirce. My recollection is they did, and that damages were awarded for the 
seizure of i 1 ose sealskins. 

The Chairman. As well as for the property? 

Mr. Peirce. \s well as for the property and the loss of the probable catch. 

The Chairman. If I am not mistaken. I think they had 424 skins. 

Mr. Peirce. That is my recollection. I am somewhat vague. 

Tl e Chairman. You also proved to tl e satisfaction of the tribunal that the vessel 
was owned by American citizens'.' 

Mr. Peirce. I filed such documents as I could obtain, which appeared to establish 
tl e owners ip of V e vessBl. 

The Chairman. Who were the owners? 

Mr. Peirce. H. Liebes & Co., I believe. 

The Chairman. Who were they? 

Mr. Peirce. I can only answer from hearsay. 

The Chairman. Just in a general way. 

Mr. Peirce. I think they were dealers in sealskins or promoters of pelagic sealing, 
or something of that sort; I do not know. 

The Chairman. You finally settled. Y"ou may tell the committee what your com- 
pensation was, if you will? 

Mr. Peirce. Certainly. My compensation in the case of the C. H. White, and I 
think also the Kate, and Anna — I am not sure of that — no; my compensation in the 
case of the C. II. While, fo±" which I recovered an award of $52,000, was $5,000. less 
my counsel fees, which amounted to $1,000. I received $4,000. 

The Chairman. Did anybody else receive any compensation? 

Mr. Peirce. I do not know. I presume James Embry got a large compensation, 
but I do not know. 

The Chairman. Who went with you to The Hague tribunal? 

Mr. Peirce. Mr. Townsend. I forget his initials. 

The Chairman. Charles Townsend. 

Mr. Peirce. He had been employed, I think, by the Treasury Department when 
the care of the seal herd was under the Treasury Department. 

The Chairman. He was sent with you as an expert? 

Mr. Peirce. As an expert. 

The Chairman. To assist you in presenting the case? 

Mr. Peirce. Y"es, sir; as a witness. 

The Chairman. Did he receive any compensation? 

Mr. Peirce. That I do not know. He received, if my recollection serves me 
aright, his traveling expenses, which I think I paid to him, to be refunded out of 
the award. 

The Chairman. Did yon pay him any money out of your fee? 

Mr. Peirce. No, sir. (Townsend. Bureau of Fisheries "Expeit," aids Peirce, 
p. 784.) 

ISAAC LIEBES FALSIFIES IN RE OWNERSHIP, AND INTEREST IN THE 
BUSINESS OF PELAOIC SEALING AND ITS PRACTICAL PROMOTION, 
AS A LESSEE OF THE SEAL ISLANDS. 1890-1903. 

Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Liebes. will you state to the committee whether you were 
interested in the J. Hamilton Lewis? 
Mr. Liebes. No; not to my knowledge. (P. 833, Hearing No. 18, June IS. t!H2.i 

INVESTIGATION OF FUR-SEAL INDUSTRY OF ALASKA. 

The Chairman. You were the ownei at one time of the ./. Hamilton /.<'<• is? 

Mr. Liebes. I was not. 

The Chairman. Was ii not transferred to you by Herman Liebes? 

Mr. Liefjes. Never, that I know. 



122 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

The Chairman. I simply wish to call your attention to the fact that there is a 
certificate from the custom officers to the effect that it was recorded in the records of 
the Government in San Francisco that yon were the owner at a certain date. 

Mr. Faulkner. T have never seen it. 

Mr. Liebes. If you will let me see it I will he glad. 

Mr. Faulkner. I have never been able to see that, but that Herman Liebes trans- 
ferred it to H. Liebes & Co. The certificate appears on page 120. 

The Chairman. Herman Liebes and H. Liebes & Co. (Inc.) — is that correct? 

Mr. Faulkner. Yes. There is a declaration on page 204 showing that Herman 
Liebes is the owner, and on page 120 there is a certificate showing that he transferred 
it to H. Liebes & Co. on the 17th day of September, 1890. 

The Chairman. Yes; that is right. 

Mr. Faulkner. And subsequently, on the 29th dav of July, 1891, transferred it to 
Max Waizman. (P. 856, Hearing No. 13, June 20. 1912.) 

PROOF, SELF-CONFESSED, BY LIEBES, THAT HE HAS FALSIFIED, AS 

ABOVE. 

The Chairman. Here is a document purporting to be signed by Max Waizman on 
the 22d dav of December, 1902, which reads as follows: CP. 860, Hearing No. ]3. 
June 20. 1932.) 

"Know all men by these presents that J, Max Waizman, for value received, have 
sold and by these presents do grant, assign, and convey to unto Isaac Liebes all my 
right, title, and interest in and to my claim against the Russian Government for the 
seisure of the schooner James Hamilton Lewis by the Russian man-of-war Aleut, on 
August 2, 1891, whilst 20 miles off Copper Islands, en route to San Francisco, together 
with her apparel, equipment, boats, guns, stores, provisions, and 426 sealskins, and 
for breaking up the season's cruise, the same unto the said Isaac Liebes, hereby 
constituting and appointing said Isaac liebes, my true and lawful attorney, irrevoca- 
ble in my name, place, and stead, for the purpose aforesaid, to ask, demand, sue for, 
attach, levy, recover, and receive all such sum and sums of money which now are or 
may hereafter become due, owing and payable for or on account of all or any of the 
accounts, dues, debts, and demands above assigned; giving and granting unto the 
said attorney full power and necessary, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as I 
might or could do, if personally present, with full power of substitution and revocation, 
hereby ratifying and confirming all that the said attorney or his substitute shall 
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof. 

" In witness whereof. I have hereunto set mv hand and seal the 22d day of Decem- 
ber, 1902. 

" Max Waizman. 

"Witness — 

"Ben. A. Goldsmith." 

This was an assignment to you of all his right, title, and interest in the claim which 
he had against the Russian Government. . 

Mr. Faulkner. I do not understand it in that way. I understand that is an assign- 
ment to H. Liebes & Co., with power of attorney to Isaac Liebes to collect this money. 

The Chairman. No; it says: 

Have sold and by these presents do grant, assign, and convey unto Isaac Liebes all my 
right, title, and interest in and to my claim against the Russian Government for the 
sei7Aire of the schooner James Hamilton Leivis. 

Mr. Faulkner. Oh, I understood it to be to H. Liebes & Co. 

Mr. Liebes. I thought your question was whether he did not transfer the vessel 
to me. 

The Chairman. Is this a correct statement of what took place? 

Mr. Liebes. I have no recollection of the document, but if any signature is on 
there it must be so. 

PEIRCE SWEARS THAT TINGLE TOLD HIM THAT LIEBES WAS THE 
OWNER, AND PRODUCES THE PROOF OF IT. 

The Chairman. Did you have all the affidavits and papers on me which were nec- 
essary to make out a case? I mean copies of the papers. 

Mr. Peirce. To make out the case against the Russian Government, certainly. 
They are all published in Appendix 1 of Foreign Relations for 1902. They are all 
published in English. The original preparation of the case was in French. It is 
quite a volume and required a good deal of French writing. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 123 

The Chairman. The Liebes were interested in all the vessels — were they not? 

Mr. Peirce. I have no knowledge of that, except by hearsay. After the proceedings 
at The Hague, Geo. R. Tingle told me that they were, as I remember it, that they prac- 
tically owned most of the pelagic sealing vessels. That is the impression I got from 
him, in some way. I cannot be sure, however. 

The Chairman. In other words, they practically controlled the pelagic sealing and 
they were members of the North American Commercial Co.? 

Mr. Peirce. I did not know any of that of my own knowledge. I simply heard it 
after the argument at The Hague from Tingle. I have this morning seen a letter 
which I wrote to my counsel, and in which I said that Tingle had informed me that the 
sale of the James Hamilton Lewis to Waizman was a mere cloak and that it was not bona 
fide sale. Whether that is true or not, I can not say. 

The Chairman. You certainly thought it was true or vou would not have written 
it? (P. 784, Hearing No. 12, June 4, 1912.) 

Mr. Peirce. I certainly thought it was true at the time, and I think it probably was. 
I simply quoted Mr. Tingle as having suggested that; I did not vouch for it. (P. 785, 
Hearing No. 12, June 4,' 1912.) 

The Chairman. I understand that there is an affidavit on file, a copy of which is 
before me, an affidavit which it was necessary for you to use in order to substantiate 
the claim of the United States before The Hague tribunal. I will read the affidavit 
and will let you make such statement in connection thereto as you may desire. 
(P. 785.) 

Mr. Peirce. No; I have never seen that affidavit, so far as I can remember, or 
heard of it. I am very sure that it was not used in that proceeding. I speak, of 
course, from memory. There were a great many documents filed in the arbitration, 
but I have no recollection of that and I do not think it was filed. You will be pleased 
to observe, sir, that that is Isaac Liebes. The owners were Herman Liebes & Co. 

The Chairman. But it was transferred by a bill of sale and Isaac Liebes is the man 
who turned up to get all the money so that there would not be any left for you. 

Mr. Peirce. I brought an injunction against Pattern and Embry. Now that you 
speak of it, I believe Liebes did turn up in connection with the James Hamilton Lewis, 
but I brought no injunction against him, I think. I think we settled it by agreement 
because Tingle had filed an agreement with Liebes to pay him 25 per cent of the award and, 
as I remember, the department paid him that 25 per cent, he paying me the 10 per cent. 

The Chairman. He even had a power of attorney from Max Waizman? 

Mr. Peirce. Yes, sir; and I presume Patton in that connection said to me some- 
thing about the sale of the James Hamilton Lewis to Max Waizman. (P. 786. 1 

ISAAC LIEBES IDENTIFIES TINGLE AS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE LESSEES 
FROM MARCH 12, 1890, TILL HIS DEATH IN 1906. 

The Chairman. Who was George R. Tingle? 

Mr. Liebes. He was employed by the North American Commercial Co. 

The Chairman. Is he living or dead? 

Mr. Liebes. I believe he is dead. 1 

The Chairman. When did he enter the employ of the North American Commer- 
cial Co.? 

Mr. Liebes. Shortly after the lease. 2 

The Chairman. And he became what? What did he do fur the company? 

Mr. Liebes. I believe he was the company's representative on the seal islands. 

The Chairman. Was he the general superintendent, or what was his title? 

Mr. Liebes. I really do not. remember what his title was. 

The Chairman. Did he continue during the whole period of the lease, or not? 

Mr. Liebes. No, sir; he died some time afterwards. 

The Chairman. How long afterwards? 

Mr. Liebes. I reallycould not tell you. 

The Chairman. Was he living in 1902, or nut? 

Mr. Liebes. I can not tell you. (P. 846, Hearing No. 13, June 20, 1912.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Liebes, it appeared that he filed some papers as attorney in 
the /. Hamilton Leivis matter. 

Mr. Liebes. Well, if you will let me see those papers, I will refresh my memory. 

The Chairman. Do you not remember that George R. Tingle did file some papers 
in the James Hamilton Leivis case and signed them as attorney for the claimants? 

Mr. Liebes. I saw it in the record as I read it. 

The Chairman. Yes, sir; that is in the record. 

Mr. Liebes. I have read it in the record. 

' Tingle died in 1906. - Lease given him Mar. 12, 1890. 



124 PUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, do you know on what date those papers were filed? 

Mr. Elliott. They were first filed in 1893. 

The Chairman. I understand that the Tingle papers were riled in 1893. At that 
time Tingle was in the employ of the North American Commercial Co., was he not? 
(Tingle employed 1890 to 1906. For 16 years.) 

Mr. Liebes. Yes, sir; I believe so. I am not certain about that, but that is my impres- 
sion. 

PEIRCE IDENTIFIES TINGLE AS LIEBES's AGENT, PAYING HIM, ETC. 

The Chairman. What did you receive from the James Hamilton Lewis case? 

Mr. Peirce. To the best of my recollection, I received the same amount, or a little 
less, from the James Hamilton Lewis case. I think J received 10 per cent. Mr. Tingle 
told me that he was entitled to 25 per cent, and that if he paid me 10 per cent, then he would 
pay somebody 5 per cent or 2\ per cent, and that would equalize it. (P. 785, Hearing No. 
12.) 

LIEBES TRIES TO DENY THAT ORDER OF PAYMENT BY INDIRECTION. 

The Chairman. Mr. Peirce stated to the committee that he was employed by 
George R. Tingle, who was the attorney who filed the papers. 

Mr. Faulkner. Attorney in fact. 

The Chairman. In any capacity that you may choose to call it. Was George R. 
Tingle attorney in fact? 

Mr. Liebes. / could, not tell you, sir. 

The Chairman. He was then still in the employ of the North American Commer- 
cial Co., was he not? 

Mr. Liebes. What year do you mean? 

The Chairman. When these papers were filed; I think it was in 1893. 

Mr. Liebes. I believe he was employed in 1893; I am not positive, but I think so. 
{P. 858, Hearing No. 12.) 

the record declares the fact that liebes was the " owner," 
1890-1902; and paid tingle, peirce, and townsend for serv- 
ices, MARCH, 1903, AFTER THEY SECURED THE MONEY NOVEM- 
BER 29, 1902. 

The Chairman. You filed a bond and drew the money after paying Peirce, Town- 
•send, and Tingle, and there is a statement at which you may look. 

Mr. Liebes. Yes, sir; I see that. 

The Chairman. In this connection I think we might as well let this memorandum 
become a part of the record. (P. 861, Hearing No. 13.) 

Said memoranclum follows: 

RUSSIAN SEALING CLAIMS. 

Claim of the owner and crew of the schooner James Hamilton Lewis against Russia. 

Amount received from Russia in settlement of the award made by the arbi- 
trator, under convention of Aug. 26, .1900 $47, 684. 78 

Deducted by Department of State as reimbursement of the pro rata share 
of expenses incurred in arbitration ' 1, 001. 56 

Available for distribution to claimants - 46, 683. 22 

Distribution made as follows: 

Herbert H. H. D. Peirce and George R. Tingle, for attor- 
neys' fees by direction of the schooner and attorney for 
crew .'. .' |'13, 949. 00 

Isaac Liebes, assignee of the owner, and assignee and attor- 
ney for members of crew, under bond filed with the de- 
partment 32, 547. 65 

C. H. Townsend, pro rata share of $410 paid to him for 
services as a sealing expert in giving expert testimony before 
arbitrator 186. 57 

46, 683. 22 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 125 

The above amounts were paid to parties named by certificate of the Secretary of 
State on the Secretary of the Treasury, as per form herewith, in accordance with the 
provisions of the act of February 26. 1896. 

Bureau of Accounts, May 28, "l 912. W. AP. 

LIEBES KNOWINGLY VIOLATES HIS CONTRACT IN RE OWNERSHIP OF 
SAID " JAMES HAMILTON LEWIS." 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds for 
its faithful observance. March 12, 1800. a pelagic hunting schooner, owned by your 
fellow lessee, Herman Liebes. was then at work hunting for seals at sea? 

Mr. Liebes. I had no knou ledge of it. 

Thti Chairman. You say you have no knowledge of it? 

Mr. Liebes. I say it such was the case, I had no knowledge of it.. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that the James Hamilton Lea is. the ownership of 
which was vested in Herman Liebes, had cleared, on or before March, 1890, from San 
Francisco, bound for hunting fur seals at sea? 

Mr. Liebes. / have no recollection of that at all, sir. 

The Chairman. I? it not a fact that at the close of the season of 1890 the aforesaid 
James Hamilton Lea is had taken some 1,471 fur-seal skins at sea, or more of them? 

Mr. Liebes. I hare no knowledge if it. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes. chat they did or did not, or that 
you don't know anything about it? 

Mr. Liebes. Idon'tknou anything about it. 

Tli" Chairman. Is it not a fact that on or about August 1, 1S90, the James Hamilton 
Lewis raided the fur-sea! rookeries on Copper Is and (C« mmanderor Hessian Islands), 
was fired on, two men badly wounded, hut managed to escape capture? (P. 887.) 

Mr. Liebes. Ihavt no knowledge of that. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that on September 17. 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi- 
dent of the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Hamil- 
ton Lewisf 

Mr. Liebes. I don't know anything about it. (P. 886, Hearing So. l-',.\ 

The Chairman. Did you know when you read the Windom lease that he had bound 
you in its terms not to engage in pelagic sealing, on the pain of penalties and the for- 
feiture of your lease and bonds if you did? 

Mr. Liebes. I have never seen such a lease that Iknow of. 

The Chairman. Did Secretary Windom modify or change his draft of the new lease 
of Mav 1, 1890-May 1, 1910, in the least when you accepted and signed it March 12, 
1890?" 

Mr. Liebes. That is a matter that I do not know anything about. (P. 887, Hearing 
No. 13, June 20, 1912.) 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that when you signed the lease and gave bonds for it h 
faithful obs srvance, March 12, L890, a pelagic hunting schooner, owned by your fellow 
lessee. Herman Liebes. was then at work hunting for seals at sea? 

Mr. Liebes. I had no knowledge of it. 

The Chairman. You say you h we no knowledge of it? 

Mr. Liebes. I say if such was the ease. I had no knowledge of it. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that the James Hamilton Lewis, I he ownership of 
which was vested in Herman Liebes. had cleared, on or before March, 1890, from San 
Francisco, bound for hunting fur seals at sea? 

Mr. Liebes. I have no recollection of that at all. sir. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that at the close of the season of 1890 the aforesaid 
James Hamilton Lcu:is had taken some 1,471 fur-seal skins at sea, or more of them? 

Mr. Liebes. I have no knowledge of it. 

The Chairman. Do you mean to say, Mr. Liebes, that they did or did not, or that 
you don't know anything about it? 

Mr. Liebes. I dou't know anything about it. (P. 887, Hearing Xo. IS. June 20, 
1912.) 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that on or about August 1, 1890, the James Hamilton 
Lewis raided the fur-seal rookeries on Copper Island (Commander or Russian Islands), 
was fired on, two men badly wounded, but managed to escape capture? 

Mr. Liebes. I have no knowledge of that. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that on September 17. 1890, you, Isaac Liebes, presi- 
dent of the North American Commercial Co., became a part owner of the James Ham- 
ilton Lewis'? 

Mr. Liebes. I don't know anything about it. 



126 > FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

The Chairman". Is it not true that Isaac and Herman Liebes held this ownership of 
the said James Hamilton Lewis between them until July 29, 1891? 

Mr. Liebes. I have no personal knowledge of that. 

Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Chairman, I think he ought to be allowed to say, too, that the 
records show here that it was assigned in September, 1900. 

The Chairman. Yes; I think he has said that. Will you repeat what the considera- 
tion was when Max Waisman transferred the interests that he had in the James Ham- 
ilton Lewis to you? I asked you that this morning, 1 believe. 

Mr. Liebes. Whatever the document calls for. 

The Chairman. Mr. Liebes filed an affidavit with the Secretary at the time of the 
execution of the lease that he was not knowingly engaged in 

Mr. Elliott (interposing). Pelagic sealing of any kind whatever; that was the dis- 
tinct impression he gave to Mr. Windom. 

The Chairman. Do you know how many pelagic sealskins were taken by the 
James Hamilton Lewis in 1890? 

Mr. Elliott. I only know from the sworn depositions of one of her hunters, George 
Wester, filed with the tribunal, 2,625 skins. (See S. Doc. 177, pt. 8, pp. 712-714, 53d 
Cons;., 2d sess.) 

The Chairman. I have a letter which I received in behalf of the committee stating 
that the James Hamilton Lewis ended a trip September 11, 1890, and had 1,464 sealskins, 
and the collector of the port of San Francisco questions the 2,625 skins as I had sug- 
gested in my letter to him. Can you explain the difference between those two sets of 
figures? 

Mr. Elliott. The deponent, Wester, who swears that those skins were taken, ex- 
plains it in his affidavit. He says they were taken in the spring catch; before they 
went over to the Russian side they had eleven hundred and odd skins, which makes 
the 2,625 skins. The fourteen hundred and odd skins that came down to San Fran- 
cisco September 11. 1890. came direct from the Russian islands. 

The Chairman. And in 1890 the Liebes were the owners of the James Hamilton 
Lewis. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes: and so certified to The Hague by Peirce and Townsend, who did 
not deny it there. (P. 962, Hearing No. 14. July 30, 1912.) 

Washington, D., C, February 16, 1901. 
Hon. Herbert H. D. Peirce, 

St. Petersburg. 

My Dear Mr. Peirce: Yours of 18th January came duly to hand. I can well 
imagine how you feel toward my clients in the James Hamilton Lewis case; indeed, 
I had quite a spat with them in San Francisco on the question of advancing you $500 
on account of valuable services rendered, and made it clear to them they could not 
escape payment to you in the event of the arbitrators awards being unfavorable. I wish 
you render me a bill for money paid out in their behalf, that I may have it in 
hand as the opportunity may be presented for me to meet them before the conclusion 
of the case; if so, I will make another effort to secure a payment to you. 

I feel myself it is a long dry spell. Surely the end is near at hand when we will 
get our pay with heavy interest to make up for the very shabby treatment you have 
received. Whatever award is made and paid will come through the State Depart- 
ment and by them paid to me as attorney of record, thus giving me the control of its 
distribution at this end of the line, which insures your fee and my own. 

I thank you for the two copies of your presentation of the case, which by an oversight 
of the department were sent to Ed at Philadelphia. In a letter from him received 
to-day he informed me he had them and after reading would send to me. He said 
your work stands out very prominently in the able brief you submitted. He, with 
myself, feels quite indignant at my client's refusal of my request; rely on my squaring 
the goods satisfactorily when I get the check in my own hands. I thank you for 
your kind expressions to me personally, and hope to wind up this long drawn-out case 
to our mutual interests, the sooner the better, that we may have the benefit of our 
share. 

As soon as you can give me an idea of the probable date of a decision, for my own 
information only, I would be glad to have it. Wishing you the greatest success. 
I am, sincerely yours, 

Geo. P. Tingle. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 127 

Washington, D. C, July 25, 1901. 

My DearMr. Peirce: Your esteemed favor of 6th instant was duly received, inclos- 
ing copy of your rejoinder, which leaves nothing to add; it is complete. I at once 
called at the department. Judge Pennfield agreed to order the printing done, so that, 
as you say, closes our case. 

I do hope no delay without the very best reasons will prevent the early considera- 
tion of the case by the arbitrator, so that his conclusion may be reached within 
the time. 

The weather here is extremely oppressive; heat intense. 

I congratulate you on the practical conclusion of your great labors in the Russian 
cases and hope for a substantial award as the result. 

Yours, truly, Geo. R. Tingle. 



Department of State, 
Office of Third Assistant Secretary. 

Washington, February 27, 1903. 
My Dear Judge Cole: I inclose herewith copies of papers authorizing me to act 
as counsel for the owners, officers, and crew of the James Hamilton Lewis and the Cape 
Horn Pigeon. My employment in the case of the C. II. White was similarly author- 
ized, verbally. I also inclose dispatch to United States Ambassador at St. Peters- 
burg, informing him that I had been appointed counsel for the Government, without 
compensation from the Government for my services. 

I also send a copy of a letter received to-day by Mr. Tingle in answer to his letter 
to Herman Ganss, which I had supposed to be in reply to his letter to him asking-for 
copies of papers which he was to file here, in the James Hamilton Lewis case. He has 
not sent the copies. I have advised Mr. Tingle to file his papers making claim for 
25 per cent. I forgot to ask you whether you had looked up the question, to see whether 
you could find a citation giving a precedent for the Secretary of State to hold up 25 
per cent on the basis of Mr. Tingle's contract with these people. 
Yours, very truly, 



Judge Charles C. Cole, 

Century Building, Washington, D. C. 



Herbert H. D. Peirce. 



The genesis of Senate bill 3410, which was introduced to legalize 
and take to the United States Court of Claims the demands of 57 
pelagic sealing- vessels, owners, masters, and crews thereof, for dam- 
ages. This bill was promoted chiefly by the Liebes's interests in 
Washington, D. C, with Don M. Dickinson as "chief attorney for 
claimants." Behind him were ex-Senator C. J. Faulkner and H. H. D. 
Peirce et al. 

THE BRIEFED CHRONOLOGY OF THIS BUSINESS, BEGINNING WITH THE 
AWARD OF THE BERING SEA TRIBUNAL, AUGUST 16, 1893, AND 
ENDING WITH THE DEFEAT OF SENATE BILL 3410, JANUARY 20, 
1905. 

August 16, 1893. — Award of Bering Sea Tribunal, Article VIII, 
provides for settlement of claims of British sealing vessels seized by 
the United States in the "open waters of Bering Sea," seasons of 
1SS6-87-S9, inclusive, etc. 

February 8, 1896. — Convention agreed upon between Great Britain 
and the I nited States to settle said claims as designated in Article 
VIII of the award of the Bering Sea Tribunal. Victoria, B. C, is the 
appointed place for assembling the commission, and July, 1896, the 
time of meeting. There are 1 1 British vessels named as legal claim- 
ants. Don M. Dickinson is appointed senior counsel for the United 
States. 



128 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

December 17, 1897. — An award is made by the Victoria arbitrators 
of $414,000 damages for the British claimants. 

February 26, 1902. — A convention (stimulated by Liebes and 
Elkins) is agreed upon between Russia and the United States to settle 
the claims' of Liebes's vessel, James Hamilton Lewis, and three other 
American vessels seized by the Russian Government in the Okhotsk 
and Bering Seas during 1889-91. The Hague is named as place of 
convention meeting, and June 14, 1902, as date of said meeting. 
H. H. D. Peirce and C. H. Townsend are appointed as delegates of 
the United States to present and prosecute the claims of Liebes et al. 
before the arbitrator. 

November 29, 1902. — An award of $28,588 is given to the claim- 
ants in re James Hamilton Lewis, with "interest on that sum at 6 per 
cent per annum from 1st January, 1892, until the day of full payment." 
To the Kate and Anna, $1,488 in United States money, with "interest 
on that sum at 6 per cent per annum until the day of full payment." 
To the C. H. White, the sum of $32,444 in United States money 
with "interest on that sum of 6 per cent per annum, from 1st of 
January, 1893, to the time of full payment." To the Cafe Horn Pigeon 
(whaling bark) the "sum of $38,750 in United States money with 
interest on that sum at 6 per cent per annum from the 9th of Sep- 
tember, 1892, until the day of payment in full." 

March 22, 1903. — Liebes, Tingle, Peirce, and Townsend divide 
that James Hamilton Lewis award as made, on this day, total sum 
of $46,682, between them. 

December 19, 1904- — The success of these claimants at The Hague 
stimulated Liebes and his associates in the pelagic sealing industry 
to prepare and have introduced Senate bill 3410; they secured a 
favorable and unanimous approval by the Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee of a report (No. 2128) on April 13, 1904 (written by their attor- 
neys, Don M. Dickinson et al.). This bill carries the names of 57 
sealing vessels, in which the entire list of Liebes'.s fleet appears, in 
eluding that of the James Hamilton Lewis. 

January 6-20, 1905. — Senate bill 3410 is defeated after a series of 
heated debates running through four daily sessions of the Senate, 
viz, January 6, 10, 19, and 20. Senators Piatt (Connecticut) and 
Dolliver fight it. Senators Foraker, Fulton, Lodge, in chief, defend 
it, but can not secure its passage. 

Note. — The sealing schooners which have been traced into the 
full, and part ownership of Herman and Isaac Liebes, are found in 
this bill a,s the Mary Ellen, the San Diego, the Alexander, the Otter, 
the E. E. Webster, the James Hamilton Lewis, and the La Ninfa. 

root's letter "exonerating peirce" and the fraud at the 
hague can not be found. 

Before the Ways and Means Committee January 25, 1907, ex- 
Senator Faulkner, of West Virginia, hired attorney of the seal con- 
tractors, had the following to say about a letter written by Secretary 
of State Elihu Root in 1906, which completely "exonerated" 
H. H. D. Peirce from any blame in The Hague fraud of 1902. He says 
on pages 44, 45, manuscript notes of hearing: 

This subject came up when Mr. Peirce was appointed minister to Sweden, and the 
whole question was canvassed and examined thoroughly by the Committee on Foreign 
Relations of the Senate. It was at this time that Secretary Root wrote a letter exon- 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 129 

erating and explanatory of the whole matter to the President. I tried to secure a copy 
of that letter to be embraced in this record, but unfortunately Mr. Root had gone to 
Canada, and I could not get it. 

And Mr. Root returned the next day, January 26, 1907, and Mr. 
Faulkner lost all interest in that letter, because it did not even hint 
at these frauds at The Hague, or refer to that matter of the James 
Hamilton Lewis. 

THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CHARLES H. TOWNSEND FOR THE 
FRAUD PRACTICED AT THE HAGUE, JUNE 27-JULY 4, 1902, AND THE 
RECORD OF HIS WORK UP TO THAT DATE FROM 1883, AS AN AGENT 
AND PELAGIC SEALING EXPERT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION 
OF FISH AND FISHERIES, WHICH GAVE HIM FULL AND COMPLETE 
ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS BOGUS PRACTICE AFORESAID. 

Dr. C. H. Townsend, under oath, made the following statement to 
the committee, May,24, 1912, to wit (pp. 734-735, hearing No. 12): 

Dr. Townsend. I have dictated some matter here and looked it over. 

My acqiiaintanee with matters pertaining to the fur seal may be stated briefly as 
follows: 

Nine visits to the Pribilof Islands, covering the breeding seasons of nine different 
years, the first in 1885, the last in 1900. The aA^erage length of time spent on the 
Pribilof Islands figures up 35 days a year, including July and the earlier part of August. 
I have been there as early as June 1 and as late as October 10. These visits were made 
under the auspices of the Fish Commission, the Treasury Department, or the Depart- 
ment of State, and the work generally consisted in the preparation of charts showing 
the annual distribution of seals on the different rookeries and the making of photo- 
graphs to demonstrate the correctness of the charts. During all of the later visits I 
participated in the annual census of the seal herd and frequently made cruises on 
Government vessels in the vicinity of the islands for the purpose of collecting infor- 
mation relative to pelagic sealing. The photographs and charts are now in the files 
of the Bureau of Fisheries and some of them have been published along with my reports 
on the condition of the seal rookeries and on pelagic sealing. 

In July, 1895, I visited the Commander Islands — those are the Eussian seal islands — 
and made photographs. 

During the latter part of May, 1892, I visited Guadalupe Island, off the west coast 
of Mexico, for the purpose of making inquiries relative to the fur seal of Lower Cali- 
fornia. This work was done under the direction of the Secretary of State. 

In 1902 I was sent by the Department of State to The Hague as sealing expert in the 
arbitration of sealing claims against Russia. In 1888, as naturalist of the fisheries 
steamship Albatross, I visited a rookery of the Antarctic fur seals in Tierra del Fuego 
and obtained specimens for the National Museum. 

While connected with the fur-seal investigations of 1896-97 I collected the log books 
of 123 vessels engaged in pelagic sealing and prepared a large chart showing the distri- 
bution and migration of the American and Asiatic fur-seal herds. 

I have just simply thrown that together to show that I have a certain familiarity with 
the subject. 

This statement, carefully prepared and read from a typewritten 
sheet by Mr. Townsend, makes his relation to the fur- sealing business 
of the United States Government, as an "agent" and " assistant" 
and a "sealing expert" of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, 
the United States Treasury Department, and the United States 
Department of State, perfectly clear and definite. 

It shows that before Dr. C. H. Townsend was sent to The Hague 
in 1900 that he had had nine years' experience personally with the 
fur-seal herd of Alaska and of study into the business of pelagic 
sealing, and his own record of the above experience is supplemented 
by the statement made by himself, in "Who's Who" for 1912, that 
he was 43 years of age when he went to The Hague, possessed of all 
21588—13 9 



130 FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

that experience above cited with regard to the seals and their 
hunters in the sea. 

A review carefully made by the committee of Dr. Townsend's 
record, as above given by him, from the official documents and 
records of the Treasury and State Departments and United States 
Fish Commission, in no respect differs from the relation of it as he 
has given it to the committee. 

During the progress of Dr. Townsend's examination, on page 750, 
hearing No. 12, he further defines his experience as a "sealing 
expert" in the employ of the United States Fish Commission, 
to wit: 

When I was detached from the work at the seal islands by this commission, in 1896, 
I went around among the sealers in revenue cutters and collected data to make a 
chart of seal migrations. I collected the log books of 123 vessels engaged in pelagic 
sealing at various times from 1883 to 3897, with an aggregate catch of 304,713 seals. I 
platted the known position of every one of these vessels on every day when a seal 
was killed in any part of the Pacific Ocean, throughout each month's sealing, in a 
different color, so that this chart, based as it is on the records of the sealing fleet from 
1883 to 1897, shows where the seals actually were. 

As Dr. Townsend first entered the service of the Government at 
Baird, Cal., in 1883, as an "assistant" of the United States Com- 
mission of Fish and Fisheries, this statement declares that he had 
had 14 years' experience with the whole business of land killing and 
sea killing of our fur-seal herd up to 1897. So, when he went to The 
Hague as the "seal expert" of the United States Bureau of Fisheries 
and the United States Department of State, he went there with all 
the authority which such a commission commanded, as based upon 
such an extended experience (p. 406-407, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 
2dsess?.). 

It will be observed that he says he had been busy making an 
exhaustive examination into the records of " 123 vessels" engaged in 
pelagic sealing, at various times from 1883 to 1897. 

As the James Hamilton Lewis, during the seasons of 1890-91, was 
one of the largest and most notorious of all the vessels in that fleet, 
it is not to be supposed for a moment that Dr. Townsend, familiar 
since 1885 with the whole story annually of land and sea killing, 
and especially charged with the duty of looking into all the details 
of pelagic sealing from 1883 to 1897, could have overlooked or 
shut his eyes to the prominent appearance of the James Hamilton 
Lewis in 1890 and her spectacular disappearance in 1891. How 
could he, when the daily papers of the Pacific coast recited at great 
length the strange and exciting details of this vessel's career in 1890 
and finish in 1891? Columns of the newspapers of San Francisco 
were filled with the story of the remarkable catch — the "high-line" 
catch of the James Hamilton Lewis in 1890. See, for instance, the 
San Francisco Chronicle's issue of September 14, 1890, and in 1891 
columns of the same city papers, all of them, again were given up, 
October 4, 1891, to the story of how she had been captured off 
Copper Island, August 2, while her crew was ashore killing seals as 
pirates. (See San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle, issues of Oct. 
4, 1891.) 

Therefore, when Dr. Townsend made the following answer to the 
committee, he told the truth (p. 754, hearing No. 12). 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 131 

The Chairman. I will ask you some questions now. I call your attention to the 
matter appearing at pages 178 and 179 of these hearings. You will find there what 
purports to be an article which appeared in the Cleveland Leader, on Saturday, August 
11, 1906. Do you know Capt. Alexander McLean? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir; I knew one of the McLeans, and I think it was Alex- 
ander — no, sir; it was not Alexander; it was Daniel McLean, his brother, whom I 
knew. 

The Chairman. Do you know who Alexander McLean was? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who was he? 

Dr. Townsend. He was a man who led a great many raids on the seal islands; I 
think on the Commander Islands as well as the Pribilof Islands. 

The Chairman. What was the name of his ship? 

Dr. Townsend. I can not say. He was at it a good many years and must have had 
a good many ships. I can not remember the names of them. 

The Chairman. Did he own the /. Hamilton Lewis? 

Dr. Townsend. I might be able to answer that question if I had the proceedings 
of The Hague Tribunal before me. The /. Hamilton Lewis was one of the vessels in 
question there. 

The Chairman. He wa« in the employ of Mr. Herman Liebes, was he not? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know whose employ he was in. I can not say at the 
present moment. 

The Chairman. The information I gather from this statement is that he was in the 
employment of Herman Liebes, who was one of the lessees in the North American 
Commercial Co. 

Dr. Townsend. I think it is stated somewhere in the The Hague Tribunal hear- 
ings that Liebes unquestionably owned sealing vessels while he was also an investor 
or shareholder, probably, in the Fur Seal Co. That is my recollection. 

The Chairman. And one of the vessels was the J. Hamilton Lewis? 

Dr. Townsend. I think the J". Hamilton Lewis was Liebes's vessel. 

Mr. McDermott. Was that a vessel engaged in pelagic sealing? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. When you say "sealing," do you mean pelagic sealing? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McDermott. They are pirates, are they not? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

As the ''sealing expert" of the Bureau of Fisheries, he had in his 
own mind, by 1897, this direct personal knowledge of the character 
of that pelagic sealing which was known as "piracy," and familiarly 
called "raiding" by the sealers themselves. Only a few of those 
pelagic sealers as "captains," or "masters" of the fleet of "123 ves- 
sels" which Townsend was acquainted with (as he deposes on p. 
750), were guilty of this raiding. These captains who, like Alexander 
McLean and his brother Dan McLean, were well known among all 
sealers and often unsparingly denounced by the law-abiding sealing- 
vessel owners and masters. Had Dr. Townsend been deaf, blind, and 
dumb during that period from 1885 to 1897, in which he told the com- 
mittee he was "busy studying the records of these sealers," he then 
could not have escaped some knowledge of Alexander McLean as a 
British subject ana "pirate" up to 1889 and then as a bogus 
"American citizen" in the James Hamilton Lewis during 1890 and 
1891. 

But he tells the committee that he did know McLean as a 
"raider" and a "pirate," on page 754, and Dr. Townsend also tells 
the committee that he knew that Liebes, lessee of the seal islands, 
owned the James Hamilton Lewis when he was promoting the claim 
of "Max Waizman" (the "dummy" owner) and the British pirate, 
Alexander McLean, as the "American owner and master" of the James 
Hamilton Lewis at The Hague, June 27-July 4, 1902. (See pp. 
407-441, H. Doc. Xo. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.) 



132 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

Now, what were those influences which caused this sworn official, 
Dr. Townsend, to present and urge upon the Court of Arbitration at 
The Hague this claim as a just and valid one, which he knew at 
at heart and in truth was a fraudulent one ? 

H. H. D. Peirce, Townsend's associate, as Third Assistant Secre- 
tary of State, says that he, Peirce, was in the game for the fees; for 
all the money he could get out of the award as such — he makes no 
bones about it; and so he sued Liebes and Tingle, April 7, 1903, for 
$11,333.33 fees in re, this award for the owners and the master of the 
James Hamilton Lewis, viz, $47,684.78. (See equity suit No. 23886; 
filed Apr. 7, 1903; United States Supreme Court, D. C; H. H. D. 
Peirce v. Liebes and Tingle.) 

But Townsend denies receiving any compensation, or having any 
personal interest in the matter, except to represent to the court that 
this James Hamilton Lewis was a vessel ' 'lawfully cleared" and "law- 
fully engaged" in pelagic sealing. He describes his activities to the 
committee (p. 758, Hearing No. 12), to wit: 

The Chairman. I do not want him to make a statement that he can not substan- 
tiate, but I would like to know now, Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you were at 
The Hague Tribunal in this matter? 

Dr. Townsend. In the progress of the work before The Hague Tribunal it became 
necessary for the Secretary to produce information on various sealing matters, such 
as the movements of sealing vessels. I carried along with me a trunk full of log 
books of sealing vessels. We would have before us the charges made by the Russian 
representative during the day, and we would work all night preparing something to 
refute the charges. I carried the log books that had been taken from the vessels. 

So when the Russians charge this vessel, the James Hamilton 
Lewis, and her owners and master, with being illegally owned by the 
lessees, and as such, unlawfully engaged, together with the record 
of piracy, Townsend says that he "would work all night preparing 
something to refute the charges"! 

Did Charles H. Townsend properly and truthfully refute the 
charges? Did he not deceive the court? Did any other "expert" 
at that time appear, who carried the indorsement of 10 years' experi- 
ence as a "sealing expert" by his Government, before the court ? No. 

So, on the strength of Townsend's sworn statements made to the 
arbitrator, Dr. Asser, he awarded November 29, 1902, $28,588 with 
interest at 6 per cent to the Lewis claimants (pp. 457-458, H. Doc. 
No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.). 

Indeed, the arbitrator had no other course; there was no one pres- 
ent to appear against Townsend who could show any " scientific" 
knowledge, or acquaintance whatever, with the business of pelagic 
sealing; and, that no doubt should remain in the minds of the in- 
terested parties as to whom he was indebted for that information 
which led him to make this award, Dr. Asser, (we are informed on 
p. 440, H. Doc. No. 1, 57th Cong., 2d sess.), states as follows, to wit: 

SESSION OF FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 4, 1902. 

The session opened at 10 a. m. 

The arbitrator, Mr. Asser, expressed his thanks to the two powers who have been 
pleased to have done him the honor to confer upon him the office of arbitrator. He 
complimented the two delegates upon the preparation of the memorandum and the 
rejoinders, and assured them of his appreciation of the supplementary information. 
He thanked the experts also. The task of the Russian experts, who were obliged to 
express themselves in another language, was particularly difficult. They, nevertheless, 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 133 

made clear more than one point. He particularly thanked Mr. Charles Townsend, 
who, by his works and his scientific knowledge, greatly facilitated the task of the 
arbitrator. He thanked the secretaries also. 
The session adjourned at 11 o'clock. 

This evidence supplied to the committee by Dr. Townsend himself, 
of his work at The Hague, makes it perfectly clear that he personally 
knew of the fact that Liebes owned the James Hamilton Lewis, 
and that as such she was illegally operating, with Liebes holding the 
lease of the Seal Islands. He also admits knowledge as early as 
1897, at the latest, of "123 sealing vessels" and their masters. He 
could not have failed to know of the James Hamilton Lewis and the 
lessees' ownership of her, or of the fact that Alexander McLean was 
her master, and a British pirate; all of this must have been well 
known to him by 1897, for he says so, to the committee, on page 
754, No. 12. 

What was the interest, after all, which drew Dr. Townsend into 
making this false showing for the James Hamilton Lewis at The Hague ? 
He denies receiving any money from Liebes thus (p. 819, Hearing 13) : 

Mr. McGillicuddy. How large was your compensation from Isaac Liebes for your 
services as an expert at The Hague, June and July, 1902, in getting this award of 
$50,000 for the owners, master, and crew of the James H. Lewis? 

Dr. Townsend. I was paid by the Fish Commission. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. What was your compensation? 

Dr. Townsend. I was not paid by Liebes at all. 

At this point the committee finds that Dr. Townsend has been paid 
by Liebes one sum of $186.57 for "services as a sealing expert/' etc. 
(See p. 861, Hearing No. 13.) This sum he declares was not received 
from Liebes "at all." But the official record of its payment denies 
him. Was that all he received? Note the folio whig: 

On May 20th, 1902, and before Dr. Townsend started for The 
Hague with Third Assistant Secretary of State Pierce from Wash- 
ington, D. C, Liebes's agent, George R. Tingle, who had secured the 
detail by George M. Bowers, United States Fish Commissioner, of 
Townsend for service in re James Hamilton Lewis claim, addressed a 
letter to the Secretary of State, in which he asked that Townsend be 
permitted to receive his "expenses and fees" for services as "sealing 
expert," out of any award that he, Townsend, should secure for the 
Lewis claimants at The Hague. Tingle makes the same request in 
this letter for the services of H. H. D. Pierce as "counsel" for the 
Lewis claimants. That this letter should have been written without 
the knowledge or consent of Dr. Townsend or Mr. Pierce is simply an 
idle assumption. This is the letter which declares the interest that 
both Townsend and Pierce had in this claim, as being for "expenses 
and fees" in return for the services to Liebes. (Equity Suit No. 
23,886: H. H. D. Pierce v. Liebes, Tingle, et al., April 7th, 1903; 
docket of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.) 

Washington, D. C, May 20, 1902. 
Mr. Secretary: In view of the request of the arbitrator that experts in whaling 
and sealing be sent to give expert opinions in the arbitration at The Hague and the 
importance of having the Hon. H. H. D. Peirce, counsel for the Government, present 
at the hearing, I have the honor to request on behalf of the claimants for the seizure 
of the James Hamilton Lewis that all expenses of such experts, and of Mr. Peirce as 
counsel, in making the journey to The Hague and return, be paid and charged pro 
rata to the claimants, such expenses to be deducted from the award allowed by the 
arbitrator and paid by the Russian Government. 



134 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

As there are two classes of claims, one for sealing and one for whaling, I have the 
honor to request that the expenses and. fees of the sealing expert be charged to the 
claimants in the sealing case. 

I have further the honor to request that $1,000 be paid to the Hon. Hertt H. H. D. 
Peirce for his unusual expenses up to date, and during his journey as an advance 
upon the contingent fee which will be due him from the award, and that the same 
be deducted from the award of the James Hamilton Lewis when paid. 
I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, yours, 

(Signed) Geo. R. Tingle, 

Attorney for the owners, officers, and crew 

of the James Hamilton Lewis. 
To the Hon. John Hay, Secretary of State. 

The committee can find no exact record of the full compensation 
which Dr. Townsend received for his "expenses and fees" as paid 
to him by Liebes, agreeably to the above understanding. 

When Liebes was interrogated (see pp. 894-895, Hearing No. 13) 
he said: 

The Chairman. Now, here is something that I did not ask Mr. Liebes. In the 
case of the damages of the James Hamilton Lewis, did you settle with Tingle and 
Peirce individually? And how with C. H. Townsend? 

Mr. Liebes. I settled with the parties that had any claims, but who they were 
I do not know. It was settled through my attorneys in San Francisco. 

The Chairman. This is a question by Mr. Elliott. Mr. Peirce said, on page 785, 
that Tingle paid him 10 per cent, that to "somebody else 5 per cent, " or " 2\ per cent, " 
that that was the equalization of the attorneys' fee -which was deducted from the 
award made for the James Hamilton Lewis, which you received in the James Hamilton 
Lewis case? How was that? 

Mr. Liebes. I can not recall the circumstances. 

The Chairman. Now, here is a question that Mr. Elliott does not ask. Do you 
know that the attorneys received 25 per cent? 

Mr. Liebes. I don't know that. 

The Chairman. I mean Tingle and Peirce and somebody else. Now, Peirce says 
he received 10 per cent and that Tingle told him that he would have to pay 5 per 
cent or 2\ per cent to somebody else, and that would even it up finally between him 
and Peirce. Do you know anything about that? 

Mr. Liebes. No, sir. 

The testimony declares that no other parties except Tingle, Peirce, 
and Townsend appear as attorneys or "experts" in making up and 
presenting this fraudulent claim of the James Hamilton Lewis at 
The Hague, June 27-July 4, 1902; and no hint, even, of any other 
party, or parties, is recorded, save Liebes, who as Tingle's "client" 
and the "owner" of the sa'd vessel and "claim" is held responsible 
for the division of this award of $50,000, which he makes as such, on 
April 24, 1903, between Tingle, Townsend, Peirce, and himself. 
(See p. 861, Hearing No. 13; and p. 785, Hearing No. 12.) 

This sum of the award was paid to Tingle and Liebes by the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury; and the State Department " memorandum " 
of the payments shows that Tingle divided $13,049 between Peirce r 
Townsend, and himself as "fees." Peirce affirms that division by 
Tingle, on page 785, Hearing No. 12. Townsend denies it. The 
official record shows that Tingle did make that division, as Peirce 
swears. (See p. 861, Hearing No. 13; p. 785, Hearing No. 12.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 135 

Townsend admits his hand in the fraud (Hearing No. 12, pp. 734, 
755, May 24, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.): 

Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department op Commerce and Labor, 

House of Representatives, 

Friday, May 24, 1912. 
The committee this day met, Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES H. TOWNSEND, OF NEW YORK. 

The witness was duly sworn by the chairman. 

The Chairman. What is your full name? 

Dr. Townsend. Charles Haskins Townsend. 

The Chairman. Where do you live? 

Dr. Townsend. I live in New York. I have lived there for some time. I am 
from Pennsylvania, where my family is living. 

The Chairman. What is your business? 

Dr. Townsend. I have charge of the aquarium in New York; I am the director. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that position? 

Dr. Townsend. Since 1902. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of the advisory board on the fur seals? 

Dr. Townsend. I believe I have that privilege. 

The Chairman. What was the dispute which was settled by The Hague tribunal? 

Dr. Townsend. The matter pending there was whether the United States was 
entitled to damages for sealing vessels seized by Russia. 

The Chairman. Was the James Hamilton Lewis one of them? 

Dr. Townsend. That was one of the vessels seized, I am pretty sure. 

The Chairman. Who represented the Government before this tribunal? 

Dr. Townsend. The Assistant Secretary of State. 

The Chairman. Who was he? 

Dr. Townsend. Mr. Peirce. 

The Chairman. Were you there also? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In what capacity were you there? 

Dr. Townsend. Mr. Peirce took me along as a sealing expert. 

The Chairman. To assist him in what he was doing? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir; to assist in handling the case over there. 

The Chairman. Did you know at the time that they were the owners of these 
vessels in which this pirate turned up? 

Dr. Townsend. No; I never knew anything about that until those things were 
brought out at The Hague. 

The Chairman. It was developed at The Hague that the Liebes were the owners 
of this vessel? 

Dr. Townsend. That is my recollection. 

The Chairman. And I suppose that is in the public records? 

Dr. Townsend. Everything, sir, that is connected with the matter must be between 
the covers of that book and be between the covers of some other public document 
in which the matter was brought up a year or so later on, perhaps by Mr. Elliott. But 
it is all published. 

Mi. Elliott. When this was brought out at The Hague, what did you advise Mr. 
Peirce to do, as his "expert pelagic sealing adviser"? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know that Mr. Peirce ever asked me for advice over there. 
He instructed me to produce certain documents that would help him refute claims, 
etc. I was a statistician. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you produce any documents that refuted Liebes's claim? 

Di. Townsend. I have no recollection in regard to it. Whatever was done is in 
the book. 



136 FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 

The lessees demand the rejection of the recommendations of the 
sworn agents of the Government, and secure the removal of Charles J. 
Goff, chief special agent in charge, with their own men, Williams and 
Brown, as successors, April 5, 1891: 

CONCERNING THE " OGDEN MILLS LETTER" TO SECRETARY CHARLES FOSTER, APRIL 2, 

1891, AND ITS INCLOSURES. 

[See pp. 311, 312, Hearing No. 7.] 

Mr. Elliott. On Saturday, August 5, 1911, Mr. Bowers read into the record of this 
committee, for the purpose of discrediting me, a copy of a letter which I have searched 
in vain for during the last 16 years; it was the "Ogden Mills letter" of April 2, 1891; 
it asked Secretary Charles Foster, Treasury Department, to immediately overrule all 
the sworn official reports of his own special agents on the seal islands, and issue to the 
North American Commercial Co. (the lessees) a permit to kill 60,000 seals on the 
Pribilof Islands during the season just ahead — the summer of 1891 ("if they can be 
found"). 

These agents of the Treasury on the seal islands, four of them — Chief Special Agent 
Charles J. Goff, and assistants, Joseph Murray, S. W. Nettleton, and A. W. Lavender, 
had all united August 1-14, 1890, in specific reports which urged that the Secretary of 
the Treasury permit no killing of seals in 1891 by the lessees, and for an indefinite 
future; those reports were supplemented by mine, dated November 19, 1890. 

The tragic, sudden death of William Windom, January 29, 1891, brought a successor 
to the Treasury whom the lessees seemed to have completely in their control, for so 
complete was that control that the following astonishing record is made in the premises, 
started April 25, 1891, by issuing that killing order April 11, following and the full 
sequence of the "Ogden Mills" letter, above cited, to wit: 

The sole warrant which this letter gave to Secretary Foster for asking him to set 
aside the verdict of those sworn officials above cited was "the inclosure of a series of 
five affidavits" and a letter "signed by Capt. Healey, U. S. R. M.," all of whom 
declared in their "affidavits " and statements that after that date on which the lessees' 
work was stopped, July 20, 1890, the seals "hauled out" in large numbers, suddenly, 
and there were plenty of fine killable seals to be had, and would have been secured by 
the lessees if Elliott and Goff had not unjustly and perfidiously used their official 
authority to so order that stoppage. 

This letter, though signed by Ogden Mills, was really written by George R. Tingle, 
who was the general manager of the lessees on the seal islands. Mr. Mills never could 
have written such a false and detailed letter of his own knowledge, and had he known 
the truth of what he was writing about, I firmly believe that he would have refused 
to sign it. I can not think otherwise, because it was such a letter. 

In the first place, all those affidavits he has cited must have been made after the 
14th of August, 1890. They were made by the employees of the North American 
Commercial Co. under pressure from George R. Tingle, who also signed one of them; 
they were supplemented by a letter to Secretary Charles Foster, from Capt. Michael 
Healey, United States Revenue Marine, who touched at the islands in October, 1890, 
and who wrote to Foster about the "seals being as numerous then as they had ever 
appeared to him in all previous years. " (Think of such a statement from such a man 
who knew so little!) 

Those , " affidavits " were simply bogus — they were false ab initio. They were 
received by Mr. Foster on April 3, 1891, in this "Mills letter aforesaid, and then what 
happened? 

On or about the 5th of April Mr. Charles J. Goff was called into Secretary Charles 
Foster's office and told that he need not concern himself with the seal-island business 
any further; that " the department had other business for him to transact at Montreal," 
Canada (i. e., looking after immigration cases). Goff was directed to proceed there 
forthwith (and he did). No complaint against him was uttered by Foster — just called 
him in and sent him to Montreal in the "regular order of official business" which 
governs all the special agents. Goff was astonished; he was speechless, but obeyed. 

Then what happened? On or about April 9 a man named W. H. Williams was 
appointed "Chief special agent of the seal islands, vice Goff, transferred;" and, on 
April 11, this man started for San Francisco from Washington with a secret permit 
from Secretary Charles Foster, dated April 11, to the North American Commercial Co., 
giving them authority, as lessees, to kill 60,000 seals on the Pribilof Islands during 
the season just ahead, "if they can be found," etc. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 137 

The following history of what the lessees demanded and secured 
on the seal islands June-August, 1891, shows the same greed which 
was exhibited by the Russian lessees in 1819-20, when an honest 
demand was made of them to stop their ruinous work. Like our 
Mills and Elkins, they prevailed; the herd was ruined and well-nigh 
exterminated by 1834. (Hearing No. 10, pp. 662-663, Apr. 24, 1912, 
H. Com. Exp. Dept, C. and L.) 

There is a written record officially made, of the fact that the lessees 
actually continued to kill seals illegally, 4,782 of them — large, choice 
seals, after they had been ordered not to do so by the Treasury 
Department. (See Exhibit H., Rept. Agents H. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com., 1913.) 

And still more, if it had not been for that protest which the British 
commissioners made July 29, as stated by said exhibit in that "pri- 
vate" meeting, those lawless lessees and their official confederates 
would have continued to kill "food" seals during the rest of the year. 

This exhibit declares that nothing stood between the lessees and 
their uninterrupted seal killing during the modus vivendi, but that 
quick action of the British commissioners; the prohibition of the 
President, the specific "orders" of the Treasury Department, and 
their repeated reiteration by Chief Special Agent Williams, that 
nothing to exceed 7,500 "food" seal skins should be taken, was, to 
them, a mere use of words to conceal their illegal work, not to stop it, 
&fulgur brutum., in short. 

They took 10,782 skins on St. Paul, when ordered, May 27, 1891, 
not to exceed 6,000 during the entire season. 

They took 3,218 seal skins on St. George, when ordered not to 
exceed 1,500 during the entire season. 

And they did all that up to and by August 11, 1891, with the 
official orders prohibiting that killing posted June 13, 1891, on the 
islands. 

Mr. J. Stanley-Brown who shares this malfeasance with Williams 
(W. H.) in 1891, came up again June 9, 1892, as the United States 
chief special agent, and on Friday, July 8 (1892), following turned 
the entire control of the killing over to the lessees, and for that service 
he was made the "superintendent" of the lessees' business on the 
islands in June, 1894. (See Exhibit B, Rept. Agents H. Com. Exp., 
Dept. Com., Aug. 30, 1913.) 

W. H. Williams, the agent who was put suddenly, April 5, 1891, in 
Goff 's place by Charles Foster, and who was so selected because Foster 
had complete control over him, went up to St. Paul's Island, and 
landed there June 10, 1891. He was also accompanied by Joseph 
Stanley-Brown, who went as Charles Foster's "own man" to get the 
facts. 

It will be noted in the foregoing statement that when Williams 
after cooperating with Brown in this illegal killing of some 14,000 
seals during the season of 1891, in violation of the international law 
which fixed it at 7,500 for that year, it will be noted that he leaves 
the islands on August 11, 1891, and returns to Washington. 

Does he ever return to the islands? No. Mr. Joseph Stanley- 
Brown takes his place, and on Thursday, June 9, 1892, arrives on 
St. Paul's Island as the chief special agent in charge. 



138 FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

What had Williams done? Why was he quietly put over, and 
"transferred" to London, as Goff before him had been transferred to 
Montreal ? 

He was " transferred " because he spoke plainly, after his unpleasant 
experience on the islands during the summer of 1891, as a tool of the 
lessees. He told his friends at home and in Washington that this 
work on the islands must stop and the lessees put out; he saw the 
greedy hand that prevented any settlement with Great Britain, and 
was ashamed of his part in the business of illegally killing those seals, 
under the whip of the lessees, and, among other plain truths, he said: 

In my opinion the only way to save the Pribilof herd is by an entire cessation of 
sealing for a considerably period. I have heard diverse views on this subject, and 
about closed seasons of 1 to 10 years as being the only way to restore the herd to its 
best form. I believe in 10 years. 

Whatever period is adopted it should involve the entire cessation of seal killing on 
the islands. Of course, I am speaking unofficially, as I have no part in the present 
deliberation of the commission. — (Fur Trade Review, Oct. 1, 1898, p. 446, New York.) 

And this is the same "scientist" and "keen business man" who was 
introduced to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, April 20, 1912, in the following 
"modest" terms by the United States Bureau of Fisheries, to wit: 

Dr. Evermann. One of the interesting phases of this question that has attracted 
my attention is the attitude which some persons have assumed toward the large 
numbers of able and distinguished naturalists who have visited the seal islands and 
who are without question the men most familiar with the fur-seal herd and the many 
problems connected with its management and effective conservation. 

Within the last 25 years nearly a score of the most distinguished naturalists not only 
of this country, but of Great Britain, Canada, and Japan have visited our seal islands 
for the specific purpose of studying the habits of the fur seals and the problems con- 
nected with the proper management of the herd. Among these gentlemen I may 
mention the following: 

Dr. Evermann (reading) : 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermann. in charge of the Alaska fisheries service, who, as 
special fur-seal commissioner in 1892. spent six months on our seal islands in the 
North Pacific and on the Russian seal islands, studying the fur-seal rookeries, hauling 
grounds, and migrations. 

"Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown, of New York, spent the seasons of 1891. 1892, 1894, 
1895, 1896. 1897, and 1899 on the seal islands, where, as naturalist and keen business 
man, he made very thorough study and investigations not only of the habits of the 
seals, but very valuable study of the economic questions involved." (Hearing No. 
10, pp. 518-519; H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

The "value" of Joseph Stanley-Brown's "studies" to the lessees 
can be at once grasped by the most casual observer, but the value 
thereof, to the public interests which he was sworn to guard, and paid 
to do so, no man living or dead can find the least evidence of. 

That the greedy lessees found him " valuable, " however, goes with- 
out question, for we find this entry made on page 222 of the St. Paul 
Journal, to wit : 

Wednesday, June 6, 1894. 

Steamer Lakme, of the North American Commercial Co., arrived having on board, 
J. B. Crowley and wife, as chief agent, and Mr. Judge and wife; also Mr. Brown, super- 
intendent of North American Commercial Co., Mr. Chicester and Mr. Armstrong. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 139 

THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES INVOKES THE SERVICES OF JOSEPH STANLEY- 
BROWN TO RENEW THE SEAL LEASE, AND DEFEAT PENDING LEGIS- 
LATION WHICH PREVENTS THAT RENEWAL. 

Mr. Elliott. And I want Mr. Bowers to pay some attention to this because this is 
important, at least some good lawyers have told me that it is very important to him — 

"Being an official letter covering a 'memorandum' addressed to Mr. George M. 
Bowers, commissioner, urging' him to take steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon 
fur-seal resolutions introduced in the United States Senate by Senator Joseph 
M. Dixon. (S. Res. 90, 91, 92.) 

"December 7, 1909. This letter from the 'bureau,' dated December 16, 1909, and 
signed by Barton W. Evermann, urges Bowers to send agents to New York, there to 
'educate' the Camp Fire Club and induce them to agree to the 'bureau's idea of 
renewing the lease,' as follows:" 

Exhibit No. 6. 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
* Washington, December 16, 1909. 

The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Camp Fire Club, of 
New York, had inaugurated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation 
designed to pievent the re-leasing of the sealing right, the cessation of all killing on 
the islands for 10 years except for natives' food, and to secure the opening of negotia- 
tions with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result 
of this movement on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon, 
of Montana, one of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two 
calling for the publication of fur-seal correspondence and reports since 1904. 

As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and 
of the recommendations of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent 
killing and the renewal of the seal island lease, the advisability is suggested of having 
Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, and Stanley-Brown use their influence with such members 
of the Camp Fire Club as they may be acquainted with with the object of correctly 
informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and of securing 
its cooperation to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau. 1 

The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Evermann. 

"Exhibit No. 7. Being the official letter of 'George M. Bowers, commissioner,' to 
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three 
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease and giving the reasons of the writers for 

1 "Committee on Expenditures in the 
"Department of Commerce and Labor, 

"House of Representatives, 

"Friday, June 9, 1911. 
"The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

"TESTIMONY OF MR. GEORGE M. BOWERS, COMMISSIONER OF FISHERIES. 

"Mr. Bowers. No new lease was made, but the killing was done under govern- 
mental supervision. 

"Mr. Townsend. You will be questioned about that later. After the first sugges- 
tion of this bill you know of no efforts that were made to delay the passage of that legis- 
lation? 

"Mr. Bowers. I know of no effort that was made to delay the passage of that legis- 
lation. 

"Mr. Townsend. And if any evidence should be introduced to the contrary, it 
would surprise you? 

"Mr. Bowers. So far as I am concerned it would, yes; and as far as I am concerned 
it would the Bureau of Fisheries and the department." (Investigation of Fur-Seal 
Industry of Alaska, p. 73.) (Hearing No. 3, p. 157, July 6, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. 
C. and L.) 



140 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, president N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January 
27, 1910; C. H. Townsend, for 'fur-seal advisory board, ' dated January 31, 1910; 
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as follows: 

THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE FRAUDULENT SECRET PERMIT GIVEN 
BY CHARLES FOSTER TO MILLS, ELKINS AND LIEBES TO KILL SEALS— 
60,000 SEALS — ON APRIL 11, 1891, AGAINST THE UNANIMOUS OPPO- 
SITION OF THE AGENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT ON THE SEAL ISLANDS 
OF ALASKA. 

1890. July 20. — Chief Special Agent Charles J. Goff and his assist- 
ants on the Seal Islands oi Alaska stop the lessees from killing seals 
to-day, thereon, because they find that female seals "in milk" are 
being slaughtered, and that the surplus male life does not exist 
which is proper to kill. 

1890. August 1. — Chief Special Agent Goff and his assistants, 
Murray, Nettleton, and Lavender, all unite in separate reports to 
the Secretary of the Treasury in asking that the work of the lessees 
be suspended at once on the islands and indefinitely. 

1890. November 1 9.— Henry W. Elliott, special commissioner, under 
authority of act approved April 5, 1890, reports urging that the work 
of the lessees be suspended at once and indefinitely, and that a modus 
vivendi be established with Great Britain for seven years whereby no 
killing in the sea or on the land will be done by subjects and citizens 
of the high contracting parties. 

1891. April 7. — -Secretary James G. Blaine agrees with Sir Julian 
Pauncefote, the British ambassador, to a modus vivendi of at leats 
one year whereby there shall be no killing on the islands or in the 
sea of fur seals. (See British Blue Book: Further correspondence 
respecting the Bering Sea seal fisheries.) 

No. 1. — The Marquis of Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. 

[Telegraphic] 

Foreign Office, April 17, 1891. 

Bering Sea. — Mr. Blaine's suggestion, which you mention in your private letter of 
the 7th April, that pending the \ ward of the arbitration on the Bering Sea question 
all seal fishery should be stopped, both by sea and land, seems worthy of consideration. 

If we approve of it, would Mr. Blaine prefer that the proposal should come from us? 
(British Blue Book entitled ' 'U. S., No. 2, 1891: Correspondence respecting the Ber- 
ing Sea fisheries, ' ' presented to both houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, 
June, 1891. Printed for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by Harrison & Sons, St. 
Martin's Lane, printers in ordinary to Her Majesty, etc.) 

No. 3.— Sir J. Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury . 
[Telegraphic— Received Apr. 23.] 

Washington, April 23, 1891. 
I have the honor to report that the Secretary of State returned to Washington and 
invited me to call on him. 

He expressed himself as gratified at the favorable consideration given by Her Maj- 
esty's Government to his alternative suggestion, and in response to your lordship's 
inquiry he said that he would prefer that the proposal, which seemed to him very fair, 
should come from Her Majesty's Government, etc. 

At this point I can recapitulate, and then carry the story of Mr. 
Blaine's duplicity and malfeasance in the premises down as follows, 
seriatim, to wit: 

March 15, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote urges Mr. Blaine to agree upon a modus 
vivendi for the coming season in Bering Sea, whereby no killing of fur seals shall be 
■done on the Seal Islands of Alaska by American citizens and no killing at sea shall 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 141 

be permitted for British subjects; in the meantime both high contracting parties shall 
carefully study the question and then agree upon a plan of proper resumption of seal 
killing, etc. 

Mr. Blaine demurred and suggested a 25-mile zone of pelagic prohibition around 
the Seal Islands instead; to this Sir Julian objected, saying that it was impracticable- 
and would not be easily enforced, etc. 

April 7, 1891. Sir Julian again urges Mr. Blaine to unite with his Government in 
a total suspension of all killing of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in the sea of 
Bering, during the coming season of 1891. Mr. Blaine agrees to do so if the British 
Government will notify him of its desire and willingness to do so. 

Sir Julian Pauncefote then mails to Lord Salisbury this proposal of Mr. Blaine to 
stop all killing on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1891, if the British Govern- 
ment will prohibit its subjects from all killing of fur seals at sea (in Bering Sea), during- 
this period aforesaid. This letter sent to New York and mailed by "special post" 
on this day and date, April 7, 1891, to London. 

April 11, 1891. Secretary Blaine, without informing Sir Julian, violates this agree- 
ment of April 7, 1891, as above cited; he gives to the lessees of the Seal Islands (D. O. 
Mills, Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, and S. B. Elkins) a' secret permit to 
kill 60,000 seals on these islands, ' 'if they can be found, " during the season of 1891. 

April 13, 1891. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury, admits, when personally 
interrogated by Hon. \\ T m. McKinley and Henry W. Elliott, that he has given this 
order of permission to kill 60,000 seals, ' ' because Blaine authorizes it, and has told 
me that Salisbury is ugly and will not stop his people from killing." 

April 22, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote denies that his Government "is ugly," and 
asserts that it is willing to stop the seal slaughter. 

April 24, 1891 . Henry W Elliott, in a half-column letter to the New York Evening 
Post of to-day's issue, under caption of "Some seal history," tells this story of Mr. 
Blaine's duplicity and venality, as above cited; it is telegraphed all over the country, 
briefly, and on — ■ 

May 3, 1891. President Harrison vetoes or orders the cancellation of this secret and 
infamous permit; he then orders steps to be taken in the State Department which 
result, June 14, 1891, in the modus vivendi being officially published, as originally 
suggested by Henry W. Elliott November 19, 1890, and Sir Julian on April 7, 1891, 
as stated above. 

With this clearly and indisputably recorded as above, it is now in 
order to produce the cause of this malfeasance of both Secretary James 
G. Blaine and Secretary Charles Foster — what was the pressure upon 
those high officials which led them to dishonor the trust which they 
were sworn to observe and obey for the public good. 

We now observe in the following letter of April 2, 1891, the studied 
letter of the lessees — the deliberate and studied foundation of 
fraud and deceit upon which Charles Foster was compelled to stand 
suddenly in full public view, May 3, 1891, and — -fall. 

Office of the North American Commercial Co., 

Mills Building, 
New York, April 2, 1891. 
Hon. Charles Foster, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: The North American Commercial Co. begs to submit for your considera- 
tion the following: 

There is a marked difference of opinion between Mr. Elliott, special agent, and the 
Treasury agents on the seal islands and the North American Commercial Co., lessee 
of those islands, as will appear by the reports of the Treasury agents and statements of 
the agents of the North American Commercial Co. and others, on file in your depart- 
ment. 

The contest to obtain the new lease caused some irritation and feeling. In begin- 
ning operations under the new lease it was natural that the Treasury agents should 
sympathize with the old company. The Alaska Commercial Co., the old lessee, made 
a spirited contest to have the new lease awarded to it. Mr. Elliott, at the time of the 
bidding and for 15 years before, had been an employee of the Alaska Commercial Co. 
He did all he could to secure the new lease for his company. He urged the Secretary 
of the Treasury in person to award the lease to the Alaska Commercial Co., although its 
bid was lower. 



142 FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 

Under these circumstances it was unfortunate that Mr. Elliott should have been 
appointed an agent to report on the condition of seals, etc., under a special act of 
Congress which he drafted and caused to be passed and under instructions which he 
wrote. 

It was also unfortunate that extending the time for taking seals on the islands should 
have been left to the discretion of Mr. Goff , Treasury agent, because by not exercising 
this dicretion wisely and extending the time beyond July 20 the United States lost 
in taxes nearly $400,000 and the lessee one-half as much. 

Your attention is called to the fact that in the advertisement for bids to lease the 
islands the Secretary of the Treasury expressly stated that for the year 1890 the lessee 
should take 60,000 seals. It is also provided in the lease that the new company should 
take this number, yet the Treasury agent saw fit, in the discretion given him, to arbi- 
trarily forbid the new company from taking more than 20,995 seals, which was not 
only a great loss to both the Government and lessee, but in violation of the statements 
contained in the advertisement and the terms of the lease. The record will show that 
on the 20th day of July, the last day of the killing, 2,000 seals were taken, and the proof 
is at hand both positive and abundant that if the time had been extended until the 
10th of August the full quota of 60,000 killable seals could have been taken. The 
company states as a reason why the full quota was not taken by the 20th of July was 
because the salmon, which largely constitute the food of the seals, were two or three 
weeks later going north last season, which will account for the seals appearing two or 
three weeks later on the islands than in former years. 

Secretary Windom regarded the failure to take 60,000 seals as a mistake, and one 
he wished he could repair. Considering this, and for other reasons, he said to the 
attorney of the N. A. C. Co., early in February, that it was his purpose to allow the 
company to take 60,000 this year, and 100,000 in the discretion of the Treasury agent, 
if the seals appeared on the islands. 

It is claimed by the company that granting a positive and definite order to take 
60,000 killable seals this year of the kind named in the laws and regulations can not 
work harm to the Government nor deplete the herd. If the killable seals do not 
■come upon the islands they can not be taken; and if they do, the company should be 
allowed to take them. 

Mr. Elliott was on the islands in 1874, and did not return until 1890, a period of 15 
years. Mr. Tingle, whose report and protest against Treasury Agent Goff's arbitrary 
action is on file, was Treasury agent on the islands for 4 years — from 1885 to 1889 — ■ 
during which time he spent 18 months continuously on the islands. His opportunities 
for observing the seals and seal life and understanding their habits, of recent years, 
has been much more extended than that of Mr. Elliott. As against Mr. Elliott's report 
and those of the Treasury agents, which it is believed Mr. Elliott inspired, stands the 
testimony of Mr. Tingle; the sworn statements now on file in your department of 
Antoine Melovidoff, brother-in-law of Mr. Elliott, a native of the islands and governor 
of St. Paul; that of Daniel Webster, the oldest sealer on the island; the letter of Dr. 
W. H. Mclntyre, now World's Fair Commissioner from Vermont, who spent 17 years 
■on the islands; as also statements of J. C. Redpath, C. A. Fowler, Capt. * * * 
Healey, and Dr. L. A. Noyes — all except Mr. Tingle disinterested parties. 

It is submitted that this mass of testimony and sworn statements is entitled to due 
weight and consideration, and if not sufficient to overcome the reports of Mr. Elliott 
and the Treasury agents, they are at least strong enough to raise a doubt, the benefit 
of which should be given to the Government and lessee and be settled only by impartial 
testimony and by persons who had no connection with the old company and no preju- 
dices against the new. 

It is said that parties interested in the old company declared, on their failure to 
obtain the new lease, that they would break up the new company in two years. It is 
submitted that after the company has spent many hundred thousand dollars in pre- 
paring to comply with the obligations under the new lease, and the losing of 40,000 
skins out of 60,000 the first year, and the proposition of Mr. Elliott to take none this 
year, would nearly reach the point of breaking up the company. 

It is claimed by the present lessee that the taking of killable seals under the rules 
and regulations of the department does not deplete the seal herd. By the terms of 
the lease it can not be terminated except for cause. If the Government can suspend 
taking seals for one year, it may for any number of years, which would, in effect, 
abrogate the lease. The Government is bound by the terms of the lease as well as 
the lessee. It has for a valuable consideration leased the exclusive right to the North 
American Commercial Co. for 20 years to take seals on the islands of St. Paul and 
St. George. It may be said that the Secretary has the power under the law to limit 
or designate the number of seals to be taken; the company claims this is to be rea- 



FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 143 

sonably construed and does not mean that the lessee shall he entirely deprived of 
taking seals. 

It has been suggested that pending arbitration if England should stop the Canadian 
poachers from taking seals in the Bering Sea that the United States should agree to 
suspend the taking of seals on land. It is not clear what right England has to make 
any demand upon the United States to stop taking animals on its own soil. But it 
is submitted on behalf of the company that the United States has leased the exclu- 
sive right to take seals on the Pribilof group of islands, and the controversy between 
the two countries presents itself with the lease in existence and the obligations of 
the United States to the lessee in full force. The lease stands as part of the condition 
of affairs that can not be changed, and while the United States can not terminate the 
lease except for cause, it should not be asked that it be done pending arbitration or 
as a preliminary to a fair settlement. 

The interests of the Government and lessee are the same and not in any sense 
antagonistic and should not be made so. The lessee is as much interested in pre- 
serving seal life as the Government, and whenever it is shown to be in the interest 
of preserving seal life it will willingly consent to a reasonable suspension of killing 
seals on the islands. But the company feels that with the present light on the sub- 
ject it would be unfair both to the Government and to it to suspend taking seals for 
this year. The company, in obedience to the terms of the lease and by way of prep- 
aration for this year's w"ork, has already incurred and is still incurring heavy expenses. 
Respectfully, 

(Signed) North American Commercial Co., 

By Ogden Mills. 

Every paragraph in that letter of Ogden Mills is false; he signs it 
for the lessees, D. O. Mills, Lloyd Tevis, Herman and Isaac Liebes, 
and S. B. Elkins (soon to be Harrison's Secretary of War, and then 
after, in 1S94, Senator from West Virginia). The absolute untruth 
and fraud of its conception is fully bared by the sworn testimony in 
Hearing No. 10, pages 662-668, April 24, 1912. (H. Com. Exp. 
Dept, C. and L.). 

Think of the strange stupidity of the following brazen untruth — 
of that untruth which bristles all through every paragraph in this 
venal letter, to wit: 

Secretary Windom regarded the failure to take 60,000 seals as a mistake, and one 
he wished he could repair. Considering this, and for other reasons, he said to the 
attorney of the N. A. C. Co., early in February, that it was his purpose to allow the 
company to take 60,000 this year, and 100,000 in the discretion of the Treasury agent, 
if the seals appeared on the islands. 

William Windom dropped dead into his chair, on the evening of 
January 29, 1891, at the banquet of the Xew York Chamber of 
Commerce, in that city. 

Yet this falsifier who pens the above tells us that "early in Feb- 
ruary" following, Windom intended to reverse his own sworn agents 
and let these public enemies have full swing at the public property 
then in dire jeopardy on the Seal Islands of Alaska. 

William Windom in the presence of Henry W. Elliott, at the resi- 
dence of James G. Blaine, in Washington, January 6, 1891, agreed with 
Mr. Blaine to a total suspension of the lessees work for five years 
from date, if the British Government would compel the prohibition 
of pelagic sealing in Bering Sea and the North Pacific for the same 
length of time from date. 

This letter of Ogden Mills urging Foster to set aside the unanimous 
testimony of his own sworn agents, and let the lessees have full 
sweep at the public preserves on the Seal Islands of Alaska was 
carefully planned and prepared with the full knowledge of D. O. 
Mills, of Lloyd Tevis, of S. B. Elkins, of Isaac and Herman Liebes, 



144 FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

all stockholders in the North American Commercial Co., or the agent 
of theirs as lessees of the Seal Islands of Alaska. 

Upon this fraudulent and lying lessees' letters authority, and all 
of those bogus worthless perjured affidavits signed by their own hired 
men and tools, Charles Foster actually, three days after he had 
received this rascally letter, reversed the ruling of his own agents 
(the agents of Wm. Windom) and gave Elkins and Liebes a secret 
permit to kill 60,000 seals on April 11 following. 

Can a better exhibition of turgid self-confessed, wicked, malfea- 
sance in high official position be found ? 

In order that no question shall be raised or can be raised sensibly 
as to the fact that Charles Foster did give that secret permit of 
April 11, 1891, as above stated, I submit the letters of Mr. Foster, 
who admits that malfeasance to me, after I had put the question 
squarely up to him and while witnesses to the truth of it were then 
living, and who stood ready to prove it, if Foster presumed to deny it. 

THE SUBORNATION OF THE STATE AND TREASURY DEPARTMENTS BY 

THE SEAL LESSEES. 

On the 2d of May, 1912, the following sworn statement was given 
to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, which exhibits the improper influence possessed 
and used by the lessees, to wit: 

NOTE FOR HON. JOHN H. ROTHERMEL. 

When John Hay asked me on June 20, 1903, to take this letter of mine, as written 
to Hon. John A. Kasson, of May 10, 1903, with its recitation of the amazing revelation 
of Mr. Blaine's malfeasance as made by Sir Julian Pauncefote, and inclosed to Mr. Hay 
by Mr. Kasson, for this purpose, as stated by the latter, Mr. Hay said: "This is a matter 
which I can not discuss with you. I know it is true, and that makes any use of it at 
this time and in this department impossible. It is best returned to you, and my 
desire is that nothing be said in the premises at the present time and while this busi- 
ness is pending between Canada and ourselves." 

Just think of this terrible revelation made by Sir Julian of Mr. Blaine's duplicity, 
and worse, as Secretary of State, thus made to me, April 22, 1891 — think of it in the 
light of the following facts, to wit: 

March 15, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote urges Mr. Blaine to agree upon a modus 
vivendi for the coming season in Bering Sea, whereby no killing of fur seals shall be 
done on the Seal Islands of Alaska by American citizens and no killing at sea shall 
be permitted for British subjects; in the meantime both high contracting parties shall 
carefully study the question and then agree upon a plan of proper resumption of seal 
killing, etc. 

Mr. Blaine demurred and suggested a 25-mile zone of pelagic prohibition around 
the Seal Islands instead; to this Sir Julian objected, saying that it was impracticable 
and would not be easily enforced, etc. 

April 7, 1891. Sir Julian again urges Mr. Blaine to unite with his Government in 
a total suspension of all killing of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and in the sea of 
Bering during the coming season of 1891. Mr. Blaine agrees to do so if the British 
Government will notify him of its desire and willingness to do so. 

Sir Julian Pauncefote then mails to Lord Salisbury this proposal of Mr. Blaine to 
stop all killing on the Pribilof Islands during the season of 1891 if the British Govern- 
ment will prohibit its subjects from all killing of fur seals at sea (in Bering Sea) during 
this period aforesaid. This letter sent to New York and mailed by "special post" 
on this day and date, April 7, 1891, to London. 

April 11, 1891. Secretary Blaine without informing Sir Julian violates this agree- 
ment of April 7, 1891, as above cited; he gives to the lessees of the Seal Islands (D. O. 
Mills, Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, and S. B. Elkins) a secret permit to 
kill 60,000 seals on these islands, "if they can be found," during the season of 1891. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 145 

April J 3, 1891. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury^ admits, when personally 
interrogated by Hon. William McKinley and Henry W. Elliott, that he has given this 
order of permission to kill 00,000 seals "because Blaine authorizes it, and has told 
me that Salisbury is ugly and will not stop his people from killing. " 

April 22, 1891. Sir Julian Pauncefote denies that his Government '"is ugly," and 
asserts that it is willing to stop the seal slaughter. 

April 24, 1891. Henry W. Elliott in a half-column letter to the New York Evening 
Post of to-day's issue, under caption of "Some seal history," tells this story of Mr. 
Blaine's duplicity and venality, as above cited; it is telegraphed all over the country, 
briefly, and on — 

May 3, 1891. President Harrison vetoes or orders the cancellation of ihis secret and 
infamous permit; he then orders steps to be taken in the State Department which 
result, June 14, 1891, in the modus vivendi being officially published, as originally 
suggested by Henry W. Elliott, November 19, 1890, and Sir Julian, on April 7, 1891, 
as stated above. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

Washington, D. C, May 2, 1912. 

(Hearing No. 10, p. 672, May 2, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

In further illustration of this subornation, and proof of it, Mr. 
Elliott, on January 25, 1907, gave to the Ways and Means Committee 
of the House of Representatives the following original letters of 
Charles Foster which admit that he issued that secret order to 
kill 60,000 seals on April 11, 1891, and which permit, after its ex- 
posure April 22 by Elliott, was "officially" dated "May 27," and 
then canceled "officially" May 27, 1891, by telegraph to Williams, 
at San Francisco, Cal. 

charles Foster's admission to elliott that he had issued a secret permit to 
kill 60,000 seals, april 11, 1891. 

[Copies of the original letters made by Ways and Means Committee, H. R., Jan. 25, 1907: Hearing on Fur 
Seals. MS. notes of same, pp. 92 et seq.} 

Fostoria, Ohio, January 11. 1895. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott. 

My Dear Sir: The temper of your note of the 9th indicates that you propose to 
assail the late administration for its conduct of the fur-seal question. 

In the discharge of my duty in the relation to this question I felt that it was best 
your services be dispensed with. I knew that this act would result in your hostility 
to me, and in due time I would be assailed by you. Now, as to your question as to 
the whereabouts of letters of Capt. Healey, I do not recall any conversation with you 
in which Capt. Healey 's name was used. 

If we had such a conversation as you suggest, whatever statement I made was truth- 
ful. I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of the letters of Capt. Healey. 

My order of the 11th of April authorizing the taking of seals limited the catch to the 
"killable seals, not to exceed 60,000." My orders to Capt. Williams were not to allow 
the company to take any seal that was not in size, age, and sex allowed by the contract. 
Yours, truly, etc., 

Charles Foster. 



Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D. C, January 19, 1895. 

Dear Sir: Your reply of the 11th instant has only reached me this morning, not 
reaching Washington until yesterday afternoon, so that I can not be held responsible 
for my seeming delay in reply. You speak of the "tone" of my letter of the 9th 
instant. I wrote you a business letter, as you are a business man, and there is no 
other tone to it. 

You assume that my purpose is to "assail the late administration" for its conduct 
of the fur-seal question. That action on my part was taken some time ago, and effec- 
tively, when I, like tens of thousands of other Republicans in Ohio, in November, 1892, 
cheerfully helped to hurl that administration from its brief and unpleasant prominence. 
I don't purpose now, as a live man, to get up and kick a dead antagonist, and you are 

21588—13 10 



146 FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

not fair in making so mean a suggestion to me. You certainly are not going to be 
assailed by me, for you are in no shape to be assailed. 

Why should you allude to the canceling of my commission? I never alluded to it 
to you or to anybody else except with satisfaction. Why, indeed, should I? You did 
not appoint me; you had nothing whatever to do with it; and when the accident of 
death brought you into a little spell of brief authority you exercised it; I never objected 
and I never cared, for this is a mere personal matter that does not interest anybody 
but ourselves. 

But the seal question is and was a public trust, and your record on that score is a 
proper subject for investigation and fair record. 

Now to business: I am not responsible for this digression. You say that you "don't 
remember that Healey letter"; that settles it as far as this inquiry is concerned; but 
you are silent as to my inquiry as to where are those statements of the employees of the 
N. A. Com. Co. Who had the right to withdraw those papers from the files of the 
department — these papers which you told the, reporter of the New York Tribune, 
May 8, 1891, were in the department on file, distinctly contradicting my statement as 
to decrease in seal life? These papers were, I suppose, your justification for that per- 
mit to kill 60,000 seals, over the sworn testimony of every Treasury agent of the Gov- 
ernment on the seal islands against it at the time you gave it out. I repeat, for your 
own credit, that these papers be produced. 

Your order to Maj. Williams put no restrictions on the killing of 60,000 male seals 

over the age of 1 year. Had that order not been canceled, as it was by my direct effort, 

it would have permitted and directed the most shameful killing ou the seal islands of 

all the shameful seal slaughter yet done on the islands or in the waters around them. 

Very truly, yours, 

Henry W. Elliott. 

Mr. Charles Foster, 

Fostoria, Ohio. 

Toledo, Ohio, January 23, 1895. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: Your favor of the 19th instant reached me at this place this morning. I 
have been troubled with an inflamed eye and have been over here for treatment sev- 
eral days. I wrote as I did because it seemed to me that your letter assumed an air of 
arrogance and suspicion, and, I might add, innuendo. If I did you an injustice I beg 
your pardon. I have no knowledge whatever of the letters and papers to which you 
refer. No paper was removed from the files by my order or with my knowledge. If 
they are not now on the files they have been removed clandestinely or by order of some 
one else. My record in relation to my official conduct is open t» the world; I did 
nothing that I would not do over again to-day with the present lights I have on the 
subject. 

Yours, respectfully, 

Charles Foster. 



Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D. C, January 26, 1895. 
Dear Sir: Yours of the 23d instant was duly received yesterday, and I am glad 
that you admit that my position of "assailing" you was an assumption on your part. 
It certainly was, and I can call on your own men, Stanley Brown and Maj. Williams, to 
bear witness to the truth of my statement that I repeatedly said to them that I was well 
satisfied to be out of the association that they belonged to in this fur-seal business. 

You know the act which sent me to the seal islands in 1890 was passed expressly 
for that purpose, and as stated in both Houses of Congress when the subject was up 
before them, it could not have been passed had it not been as stated, and Mr. Windom 
freely told me so before the bill was ever introduced. 

I knew, as everybody admits here to-day, that I was right on this seal business; 
and that you and Mr. Blaine were wrong in giving that scandalous order to Elkins in 
distinct violation of that offer made by Blaine to Her Majesty's Government, April 
7, 1891. * * * you issued the order violating the faith of the department on the 
11th of April, 1891. I exposed that fact on April 22, 1891, and you "dispensed with 
my services" on the 25th of April, 1891. Of course we parted. We had to part. 
Very truly, etc., 

Henry W. Elliott. 
Charles Foster, 

Fostoria, Ohio. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 147 

The steps taken by Elliott to uncover the deceit and malfeasance 
of Blaine and Foster are given by him to the committee, April 24, 
1912, as follows: 

Mr. Elliott: How was that secret permit of April 11 found out and soon made pub- 
lic? By the rarest of accident. It was thus : 

On or about April 8, Sir Julian Pauncefote was a guest at a certain private or social 
dinner given to him. His hostess sat beside him; during the progress of this enter- 
tainment, Sir Julian remarked to her that he believed that he had been instrumental at 
last in settling the vexed fur-seal question, and that Mr. Blaine and he had just 
agreed that no further slaughter on the islands or in the Bering Sea was to take place 
for at least six or seven years, or that until both Governments had thoroughly inves- 
tigated the conditions, no killing was to be resumed, at least. 

On the evening of April 11 , following, this lady w-as at another social entertainment, 
and there overheard the attorney for the North American Commercial Co. congratu- 
late an unknown person who stood beside him in the reception line over their success 
during the day in getting Charles Foster to give them a permit to kill seals; that 
"nobody in Washington knew anything about it," and "nobody was to know any- 
aboutit" either, etc. 

In a moment it flashed on the mind of this lady that Sir Julian had been duped 
or those mer were in error; second thought told her that the lessees' attorney (Gen. 
N. L. Jeffries) was one who knew his business, and it must be true. She had heard 
me tell how Mr. Blaine was pledged to a close season; so, on the following day, she 
called on me at the Smithsonian Institution and told me of what she had heard, all 
as above stated. 

Astonished and mortified, 1 at once set to work to find out the truth. I knew that if 
this was a secret permit thai if I went up to either Mr. Blaine or to Secretary Foster, 
they would not admit it; it must be secret, or it would be published and I would, too, 
have been called in and notified ot such an order, and the reasons why it was given over 
the denial of it by myself and all of the official reports of the department's seal agents. 
As Congress had adjourned March 4, 1891, there was no way of getting a resolution of 
inquiry and the like introduced and passed. I therefore asked Congressman William 
MeKinley, jr., who was still in the city, to call on Secretary Charles Foster and put 
this inquiry sharply and squarely up to him. 

Major MeKinley did so. On Monday morning — 1 think on or about April 14, 1891 — 
he called on Foster at the Treasury Department. Later, same day, he reported to 
me that Foster first shirked the answer; then admitted that he had given this secret 
order on April 11, and had given it after a full understanding with Mr. Blaine, who 
on that day had informed him that there was no hope of getting any modus vivendi 
from Great Britain; that "the British were ugly," etc. 

This report of Maj. MeKinley aroused my suspicions as to the status in so far as 
Great Britain's part in the business was concerned. I knew all the time that the 
Canadians opposed my plan; but I had taken two letters over to Secretary Blaine in 
January and February, 1891, written to me from London, and by a gentleman who 
was very close to Lord Salisbury. These letters assured me that Salisbury was in 
favor of my modus vivendi. (I gave those letters to Mr. Blaine and he kept them.) 

If anything was to be done to stop this infamous killing permit thus started under 
cover, it must be done at once and before the lessees' vessel was loaded in San Francisco 
and cleared for the islands. I knew that such a permit would be flashed instantly 
over to them there, and that this work of getting ready for the season's killing was 
surely under way. 

On the 22d of April, 1891, I learned directly and positively that the British premier 
was not "ugly," was not aware of the fact that he was secretly misrepresented here 
by our own high officialism in charge of this fur seal question. Knowing this, then, 
1 took the only step I could take as a good citizen to stop this infamous game as played 
between the lessees and Secretary Charles Foster, using Secretary Blaine as their 
shield. I wrote a brief, terse story of it, and signed my name; then addressed it to 
the New York Evening Post on the evening of this day, April 22. That letter was 
published in that paper Friday, April 24, 1891. It stirred official Washington from 
top to bottom in the State and Treasury Departments. This exposure of that secret 
killing order went all over the United States instantly in the press dispatches, and it 
caught the eye of President Harrison, who at this time was on a railroad-touring circuit 
of the Pacific Coast and somewhere in California. He vetoed this infamous killing 
order by wire, either from Los Angeles or San Francisco, on May 3, 1891 (or from some 
point in California). This was published in the New York Herald May 4, 1891. 
(Hearing No. 10, p. 664, Apr. 24, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



148 FUR-SEAL HEED OE ALASKA. 

The manner in which he finally reached Sir Julian and so learned 
of the deceit of Blaine and was thus enabled to expose the jobbers 
and stop the slaughter that season of 1891, as the secret permit of 
April 11 ordered, is set forth by Elliott in terrible words of truth to 
the rotten officials of the Bureau of Fisheries, thus : 

The Chairman. All right then. I suppose it is the sense of the committee that the 
statement shall go in? 

Mr. Patton. I have no objection. 

The Chairman. Then it is so ordered. 

Washington, May 12, 1903. 

Dear Col. Hay: I do not know why the inclosed is sent to me, except for my 
sympathy with Elliott in the matter of the Alaskan seals. Nor do I know what to 
do with it except to place it at your disposition to decide if there is wisdom in his 
suggestion. 

Very faithfully yours, Kasson. 

(Given to me by Mr. Hay, in Department of State, June 20, 1903, 11.40 a. m. — 
H. W. E.) 



Lakewood, Ohio, May 10, 1903. 

My Dear Mr. Kasson: In packing away a lot of papers to-day I came upon those 
minutes of the interview which took place between Sir Julian and myself in April, 
1891. You suggested that I put them into writing after I had recited them to you 
in your residence, December 10, 1901. I inclose a copy of them. 

Reading them over, the thought occurs to me that the desperate condition of affairs 
on the seal islands to-day warrants Sir Michael in doing exactly what Sir Julian did 
in 1891. He can override the Canadians and agree upon a modus vivendi for 1904, 
just as Sir Julian did for 1891. 

Sir Julian took this action solely on the strength of his belief in the truth of my 
representation and report of 1890. Sir Michael can have not only all of this ground, 
but the important additional data which I have placed in Mr. Hay's hands. 

I had to go as a stranger, personally, to Sir Julian in 1891, on account of Mr. Blaine's 
"infirmity" of purpose. Mr. Hay can go to Sir Michael with vastly greater effect 
and tact than I went to Sir Julian. He can take these authentic records, illustrations, 
facts, and figures which I have given him recently and lay them with great emphasis 
before the British ambassador. 

Something must be done this summer and before Congress meets. Otherwise, if 
naught comes from the State Department, the pending seal bill, now lying in the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, will be passed in short order, as a measure 
absolutely necessary to save the fur seal species of Alaska from complete extinction. 

It would be a great feather in Mr. Hay's cap, and also for that of Sir Michael, if such 
a modus for 1904 was agreed upon as was that of 1891. 

I have never said a word to Mr. Hay about this particular matter and the securing 
in 1891 of that modus vivendi which I urged in my report of 1890. I do not know 
whether I ought to. If you think it proper and will serve as a useful side light, I 
venture to ask that you see Mr. Hay and talk it over with him, for, really, the more I 
think of it the more I am inclined to believe that Sir Michael can easily do again 
what his distinguished predecessor did in the premises, and for which action he was 
highly rewarded by his Government, in spite of the bitter opposition of the Canadians. 

With every regard for you, 

I am, faithfully, your friend, Henry W. Elliott. 

Hon. John A. Kasson, Washington, I). C. 

[In elosure.[ 

Washington, D. C, December 10, 1901. 
During a call made upon Mr. John A. Kasson this morning and for the purpose of 
understanding fully what the High Joint Commission did about the fur seal question 
before it was strangled by the boundary dispute February 22, 1899, Mr. Kasson said 
to me that I ought to reduce to writing that account which I had given him of the 
adoption of my modus vivendi of 1891-1893; this account to be sealed and not broken 
during the life of the British ambassador, the other party, James G. Blaine, being 
dead. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 149 

I therefore make the following statement, which will constitute a complete sequel 
to my diary notes of what took place between Mr. Blaine and myself prior to my 
interview with Sir Julian. 

Wednesday, April 22, 1X01 : After due reflection and in spite of the fact that I had 
never met the British minister, I resolved this morning to call upon him and put 
the question directly to him whether or no he had refused to entertain any proposi- 
tion for a modus vivendi in Bering Sea for the protection of the fur seals, as he was 
charged with doing- by Charles Foster on the 13th instant (see preceding memoranda). 

I took the Connecticut A'vemie street car on F, corner Tenth NW., and entered 
the British Legation door at half past 10 o'clock in the morning; the servant took my 
card, left me standing in the hall, returned in a few minutes saying that Sir Julian 
was dressing and would see me when he came down. I was ushered into the office, 
which opens directly from the hall, opposite the drawing-room. I had penciled on 
my card the words "concerning the fur seals of Alaska," so that he might know what 
I was after. 

I was not alone more than 10 or 15 minutes before Sir Julian came into the room, 
and he greeted me with the greatest courtesy, saying that he had heard a great deal 
about me and that he had asked Secretary Blaine to introduce me several times. 

I replied, saying that 1 too had often asked Mr. Blaine to present me, but that he 
had not done so. 

"I have called oif you, Sir Julian, this morning on my own responsibility. I do 
not come from Mr. Blaine. I have come to make an inquiry which may be improper; 
if it, is, pardon me and give no answer, but I want to inform you that an order to kill 
60,000 fur seals was given to the lessees of the seal islands on the 11th instant; that 
this order to kill was based upon the refusal of your Government to unite with mine 
in a modus vivendi whereby all killing on land and in the sea is to be suspended 
during the coming season in Bering Sea. If this refusal of your Government to act 
with mine is authentic, then I want to say to you from my full knowledge and under- 
standing of the question that killing 60,000 young male seals on the Pribilof Islands 
this summer means the absolute extermination of that life up there, and the shame 
of this doing is upon your Government." 

Sir Julian's manner instantly changed as I spoke; his expression became one of 
intense surprise; he answered in language substantially as follows, walking up and 
down the end of the room where we were standing, alternately facing and partly 
turning from me: 

"It is not true; my Government has been trying to get Mr. Blaine to agree upon 
some such plan ever since the opening of March, and it was not until the 7th day of 
this month that he agreed to it, and I am expecting to hear by return post of the 
acceptance by my Government of the modus vivendi. I posted the offer of Mr. Blaine 
on the same day and immediately after he made it to me. Really, my dear sir, you 
surprise me. I do not believe that Mr. Blaine knows what he does want. I have 
been having quite a time trying to find out." 

We then talked a few minutes about the condition of the seals, the attitude of the 
Canadians, and of our lessees. He said that it was a case in which the testimony was 
exceedingly conflicting, and that under the circumstances the only humane and wise 
thing to do was to stop the killing for a season at least and look into the matter during 
the meantime. He said that as far as he was concerned his sympathy was for the 
seals and he would give them the benefit of every doubt. 

I then took my departure, having been with him about half an hour. 

Henry W. Elliott. 

THE LESSEES, D. O. MILLS, UNITED STATES SENATOR ELKINS, AND 
ISAAC LIEBES, PARTICIPATE IN THE PROFITS OF THIS ILLEGAL 
KILLING OF SEALS AND HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THAT WORK. 

The interest which these lessees had in getting those 343,365 seal 
skins is clearly established by an exhibit of their profit in the business, 
as given ante, page . 

The question at once arises. Since these men have made a net gain 
for themselves of $5,000,000, have they made that gain honestly ? 

The answer, based upon the following facts of record, is that they 
have not; they have violated the law and regulations of the Govern- 
ment, in order to get those seals; and, in so doing they have wrought 



150 FUK-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 

great injury to the fur-seal herd to the end of practically destroying 
its value, for the next 10 years. To gain that end of violating these 
rules and regulations of the Government, these men, Liebes, Tevis, 
Mills, and Elkins, have successfully combined with certain agents 
of the Government in charge of the seal islands, as will appear by 
the following: 

II. Isaac and Herman Liebes, Lloyd Tevis, D. O. Mills (lessees), 
on the 12th day of March, 1890, combined with Stephen B. Elkins 
and George R. Tingle to deceive William Windom, Secretary of the 
Treasury, in order to gain from him the lease of the seal islands of 
Alaska, said lease running from May 1, 1890, to May, 1910 (20 years). 

They were successful, and so secured the lease (full details of which 
were given to the Ways and Means Committee, January 14, 1907, by 
Henry W. Elliott, and renewed by him to the House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, May 15, 
1911). 

III. On the 5th day of April, 1891, Charles J. Goff, United States 
special agent in charge of the seal islands, was removed therefrom, 
through the combined efforts of said lessees and Charles Foster, 
Secretary of the Treasurer, said Goff having stopped said lessees in 
then illegal and injurious killing of seals on the Pribilof Islands, 
June 20, 1890, and having recommended that all killing by said 
lessees be suspended entirely for an indefinite term of years tor the 
public good. 

Said lessees had one W. H. Williams appointed in Goff's place 
April 5, 1891, and with Charles Foster's own selection also, Joseph 
Stanley Brown was appointed April 23, 1891, to visit the islands as 
his own personal representative "to get the facts," etc. 

These men reached the island June 10, 1891; the international 
modus vivendi of June 15, 1891, was anticipated by them, in their 
instructions of May 27, 1891, which were not to permit the lessees 
to take more than 7,500 seals. These orders were duly entered in 
the official journal on the islands, June 13, 1891. In spite of this 
specific order not to permit the killing of more than 7,500 seeds on 
both islands during the entire season of 1891, yet these lessees so 
influenced these agents, Williams and Brown, as to actually kill and 
secure the skins of 13,695 seals by August 11 following, and have 
the same regularly endorsed by them. 

IV. On June 9, 1892, said Joseph Stanley Brown, returned to the 
seal islands as the "chief special agent in charge"; and, on July 8, 
1892, he ordered that the entire supervision and control of the 
Government over the lessees on the killing grounds be given to the 
lessees; thus, as the following certified copy of the official orders 
reads on the official journal of the United States Treasury agent, 
St. Pauls Island (p. 2). 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 151 

Friday, July 8, 1892. 
The entire control and management of the killing grounds and killing of the seals 
were given to Mr. Fowler, of the N. A. C. Co., by order of Mr. J. Stanley Brown, agent 
n charge, and Assistant Agent Murray was ordered to count the seals. 1 

V. Having- thus given the entire control of the Government agents 
over the killing of seals by the lessees to said lessees themselves on 
the 6th day of June, 1894, Mr. J. Stanley-Brown came back to these 
seal islands as the paid superintendent of the lessees and took charge 
of their interests on the killing grounds. The following official entry 
declares Mr. Brown's association with the lessees (p. 222, official 
journal of the United States Treasury agent in charge of St. Paul 
Island) : 

Wednesday, June 6, 1894. 
Steamer Lahne of the North American Commercial Co. arrived, having on board 
J. B. Crowley and wife, as chief agent, and Mr. Judge ami wile, also Mr. Brown, 
superintendent of North American Commercial Co., Mr. Chichester, and Mr. Arm- 
strong. 

VI. On May 14, 1896, Secretary of the Treasury John G. Carlisle 
issued an order to the agents in charge of the seal islands of Alaska, 
which specifically directed them to prohibit the lessees from "killing 
yearlings or seals having skins weighing less than six pounds," thus: 

[P. 14) Official record or journal of the chief special agent in charge of the seal islands, St. Paul Island. 
This letier is entered by ,T. B. Crowley (p. 14) in the journal of his office Tuesday, June 17, 1896, and 
before the killing was begun.] 

Treasury Department, 
Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, !>. C, May 14, 1896. 
Mr. J. B. ('ROWLEY, 

Special Agent in Charge of the Seal Islands, 

care of North American Commercial t o., 

San Francisco, < 'al. 
Sir: 1 inclose herewith for your information copy of a letter, dated the 13th instant, 
addressed by me to the Secretary of the Treasury and ap] roved by him. in relation to 
the taking- of fur seals on the Pribilof Islands and determining the quota of such seals 
to be allowed the North American Commercial Co. during the season of 1896. You 
are instructed to permit said company to take on the islands during the season of 1896 
all killable male seals over and above the number which in your opinion is sufficient 
to fertilize the female seals, the number taken not to exceed in any event 30,000 
seals. The killing of yearlings and seals whose skins weigh les* than six pounds is 
prohibited. 

Respectfully, yours. 

C. S. Hamlin. Acting Secretary. 
True copv. 
Attest: 

A. F. Gallagher. 

i Mr. ,T. Stanley Brown appears in 1894, on the seal islands, as the "superintendent of the X. A. C. Co.' 
He is still useful in this conspiracy as late as 1909, in the attempt then made by the Bureau of Fisheries to 
renew the Elkins lease, as the following official letter attests: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington. December 16, 1909. 
The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 last announced that the Campfire Club, of New York, had inaugu- 
rated a campaign to save the fur-seal herd through legislation designed to prevent the re-leasing of the 
sealing right, the cessation of all killing on the islands for 10 years except for natives' food and to secure the 
opening of negotiations with Great Britain to revise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. As the result 
of this movement, on December 7 three resolutions were introduced by Senator Dixon, of Monlana, one 
of which embodies the provisions before mentioned, the other two calling for the publication of fur-seal 
correspondence and reports since 1901. 

As the object of this movement is at variance with the program of this bureau and of the recemmer dat ions 
of the advisory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to prevent killing and the renewal of the seal-island 
lease, the advisability is suggested of having Messrs. Townsend. Lucas, and Stanley Brown use their 
inTm?e vith such omibars of the Camolre Olub as they may be acquainted with with the object to 
correctly informing the club as to the exact present status of the seal question and ol securing its cooperation 
to effect the adoption of the measures advocated by this bureau. 
The attached letter is prepared, having in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Kvfrmann. 



152 PUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 

In spite of this distinct prohibition of the killing of "yearlings" 
by the Secretary, yet the records of the London sales show that the 
lessees took some 8,000 a yearling" or "eyeplaster" skins in open, 
flagrant violation of these specific rules of the department in getting 
this quota of 30,000 seals allowed them subject to those orders. 

The part which Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown took in loading those small 
yearling skins, 8,000 of them, in order to weigh them in as "not 
under six pounds, and as 2-year-old male seals" after Secretary 
Carlisle's orders were posted, may be easily understood. It needs no 
description. 

Dr. Jordan, in his final report, declares that he is under great obliga- 
tions to Mr. Brown for the valuable aid given him (Jordan) while 
studying the seal herd. 



EXHIBIT IV. THE EXPERTS QUOTED BY SECRETARY NAGEL 
AS HIS ADVISERS IN KILLING FUR SEALS IN VIOLATION 
OF LAW, ALL DENY THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, AND ALL 
DENY ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHETHER THAT 
KILLING WAS LEGAL OR ILLEGAL, AS DONE BY NAGEL. 

On April 2(3, 1909, Secretary Charles Nagel wn notified in specific 
detail that his agents, under his directions, were killing seals on the 
Pribilof Islands in open, flagrant violation of the law and regulations. 
On May 18, 1910, the executive committee of the Camp Fire Club of 
America addressed a stirring letter of protest to the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor against any further killing of seals on the 
Pribilof Islands for commercial purposes, and the Secretary was 
warned that if any seals were killed by him it would be a breach of 
the faith reposed in him by the Senate Committee on Conservation of 
National Resources. This being ignored, on May 27, 1910, the 
executive committee of this Camp Fire Club addressed a second letter 
recording its final protest, and warning the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor not to make a false step in the matter. This warning was 
unheeded, and under orders from the Secretary of Commerce and 
Labor, dated May 9, 1910, 12,920 fur seals were slaughtered on the 
Pribilof Islands in June and July, 1910. 

On December 16, 1910, the skins of those seals thus slaughtered and 
taken by the order of Secretary Charles Nagel, as above stated, were 
sold in the London fur market, and the official records of the sale 
revealed the fact that 7,733 of those skins were classified as "small 
pups" and "extra small pups." The London measurements which 
declare this classification show that these skins were taken in violation 
of the law and regulations. 

On January 9, 1911, Senator Knute Nelson introduced Senate bill 
No. 9959, entitled "An act to protect the seal fisheries of Alaska, and 
for other purposes." This bill was introduced at the request of the 
Camp Fire Club of America for the purpose of preventing by manda- 
tory law the killing of any fur seals on the Pribilof Islands for com- 
mercial purposes during the next five years. 

On January 10 the chairman of the Senate committee submitted 
a copy of this bill thus introduced by Senator Nelson, to Secretary 
Charles Nagel, and asked him to express his opinion officially to the 
committee upon its merits, alluding also to the protests against his 
killing in 1910 and thereto recorded, and made directly against the 
action of his agents, killing seals under his direction, in violation 
of the law and regulations. On January 14, 1911, Secretary Charles 
Nagel addressed the following letter to Chairman Dixon: 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 

Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, January 14, 1911. 
My Dear Senator: I have your communication of the 12th instant inclosing 
Senate bill No. 9959 to amend an act entitled "'An act to protect the seal fisheries of 
Alaska, and for other purposes." 

The essential purpose of this bill I take to be a suspension of seal killing for a period 
of five years from and after the 1st day of May, 1911. Since the hearing before your 

153 



154 PUB-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 

committee last year I have had some occasion to consider this question with the 
result that the impressions then expressed have, if anything, been strengthened. 

Under existing conditions I can not believe that the seal herds would be in any 
sense conserved by suspending the killing of male seals in the manner in which it is 
now being done. So long as pelagic sealing is continued there does not appear to me 
to be even room for discussion. I believe it can be demonstrated that the number 
of female seals killed by the pelagic sealers substantially equals the number of male 
seals killed by the Government. If that be true, one and perhaps the chief argument 
which has been advanced would seem to be without foundation. 

However, if pelagic sealing were discontinued and all the female seals were abso- 
lutely protected, I still believe that it would be perfectly safe, and in a measure 
necessary, in so far as the conservation of the herd is concerned, to kill a certain per- 
centage of male seals. Of course my personal judgment is without value. I am 
relying upon the advice of experts who have been appointed to inquire and report 
and who have given the department the benefit of their opinion. 

I gather that a further ground has been assigned for the discontinuance of seal killing, 
namely, that such discontinuance would be received by foreign countries as proof of 
our disinterestedness and that such a course would serve to promote the consumma- 
tion of treaties to prohibit pelagic sealing. If this were so, I should, of course, advo- 
cate the discontinuance, but I have no intimation from the State Department that 
such a course on our part would have the slightest bearing upon pending negotiations. 
I can not undertake to speak upon this phase of the question, but no doubt that 
information can be readily obtained from the State Department. 

I am glad to say that the results of the first year's experience under the law enacted 
last year are now at hand. Compared with the amounts received under the contract 
system the showing is, I think, a very satisfactory one. At the same time I would not 
be understood as saying that a gain in the receipt of a few hundred thousand dollars 
ought to be conclusive in determining the Government's policy. On the contrary, 
I am of the opinion that the primary consideration to have in mind is one of con- 
servation, namely, the preservation of the herds. If I could believe that the policy 
which the Government now pursues in any sense endangers the herds, I should advo- 
cate a change. My recommendation with respect to the bill now pending is based 
upon the opinion that the Government is now killing only such male seals as may be 
regarded as surplus, and that the preservation of the herds is not in any degree affected 
by this policy. 

If it is proposed to have a hearing upon this bill, I respectfully ask that as much 
notice as possible be given, so that I may make sure to have present those representa- 
tives of the bureau and such members of the boards and commissions as are more 
especially conversant with the question. 
Very sincerely, yours, 

(Signed) Charles Nagel. 

Hon. Joseph M. Dixon, 

United States Senate. 

In this letter above cited, Secretary Nagel says that he himself 
possesses no knowledge as to the work being done on the islands, but 
that he issued his orders and relied upon the judgment of experts duly 
qualified and appointed, who gave him their advice. On June 9, 
1911, Fish Commissioner Bowers, representing the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor, appeared before the House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, and pre- 
sented to the Committee the names of those experts upon whom the 
department relied as its authority for killing small seals in violation of 
law and regulations. 

Mr. Bowers testified as follows (June 9, 1911, Hearing No. 2, p. 109) : 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. I ought to have another statement here that I would like 
to have offered, but I am not able to find it at present. If the gentleman will permit, 
I wish to say that these regulations are in conformity to recommendations made by this 
advisory board. 

Mr. Cable. Give the names of the members of the advisory board. 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the Fur-Seal Board and of the Advisory Board, 
Fur-Seal Service, are as follows: 

"In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered 
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following: 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries 
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the Fur- 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 155 

Seal Commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and Bering 
Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. 1 

"The Advisory Board, Fur-Seal Service, consists of the following: 

"Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of the 
International Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance of the 
treaty of February 29, 1892, and whose published report in four volumes is the most 
comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published on all 
matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most distin- 
guished and best- known naturalist in the world . 

"Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States National Museum, 
for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the Fur-Seal Commissions 
of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied all the fur-seal rookeries 
of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal islands is the most critical 
and thoughtful that has been written. 2 

"Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently Chief of the Biological Survey, member of the 
Fur-Seal Commission of 1890, and the greatest living authority on mammals. 3 

"Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, director of the American Museum of Natural History, 
member of the Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most 
discerning and best-known naturalists. 4 

"Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years 
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur-Seal Commissions of 
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Townsend 
made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic sealing. 5 

These experts thus certified to the committee as the authority upon 
whom the department relied for this killing, above stated, in violation 
of law and regulations, were Messrs. Merriam, Stejneger, Lucas, 
Townsend, Evermann, and Lembkey. 

Thereupon the committee summoned those experts to appear and 
testify as to their knowledge of this killing as above stated. The fol- 
lowing analysis of their testimony declares the fact that not one of 
those experts was above quoted by Secretary Nagel, January 14, 
1911, and June 9, 1911, except Lembkey had any knowledge what- 
ever of this killing as ordered by Secretary Nagel. They also declared 
complete ignorance of the work as it has been done under orders of 
Secretary Nagel; and still further they all declared, except Lembkey, 
that they, of their own personal knowledge, can not pass any opinion 
upon this work as to whether it was legally or illegally done. This 
testimony follows, being taken from the sworn statements of those 
gentlemen and paralleled with that of their own writings and the 
depositions of then* associates in the Bureau of Fisheries, "Advisory 
board fur-seal service," to wit: 



The sworn statements of Dr. C. Hart Merriam, who is one of the experts cited to the 
United States Senate Committeeon Conservation of National Resources, January 14. 1911, 
and to the House Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals in violation of 
the law and the regulations, to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur-seal 
service, are as follows: 

Dr. C. Hart Merriam, for many years chief of the Bureau of Biological Survey, 
and perhaps the ablest living mammalogist of the world. 

Dr. Merriam was one of the two special commissioners sent to the seal islands in 
1891 by the United States Government to study, in conjunction with commissioners 
from Great Britain and Canada, the island life of the seals. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, 
June 9, 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) 

1 Evermann testified thathis "experience" on the islands was just nine days in 1895. 

2 Stejneger has testified thathis ''experience" on the islands was just 10 'days, in 1896. 

3 Merriam has testified that his ''experience" on the islands was just in days, in is;u . 

4 Lucas has testified that his "experience" on the islands was just 92 days, or "about so Long," in two years. 
6 Townsend has testified that his "experience" on the islands was just 212 days, or "about so long," in 10 

years. 



156 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Secretary Nagel don't know 
anything himself — he relies wholly 
upon the advice of experts duly 
appointed. 

The letter of Secretary Charles Nagel in 
answer to inquiry by Committee on 
Conservation of National Resources as 
to his ' ' authority " for his work of killing 
fur seals on the Pribilof Islands in vio- 
lation of law and rules, and who puts 
this killing as done squarely upon Jor- 
dan, Stejneger, Merriam, et al. 

[Copy.] 

Department of Commerce and Labor, 
Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, January 14, 1911. 

My Dear Senator: I have your com- 
munication of the 12th instant inclosing 
Senate bill No. 9959 to amend an act en- 
titled ' ' An act to protect the seal fisheries 
of Alaska, and for other purposes." 

The essential purpose of tLis bill I take 
to be a suspension of seal killing for a 
period of five years from and after the 1st 
of May, 1911. Since the hearing before 
your committee last year I have had some 
occasion to consider this question with 
the result that the impressions then ex- 
pressed have, if anything, been strength- 
ened. 

Of course my personal judgment is with- 
out value. I am relying upon the advice 
of experts who have been appointed to in- 
quire and report and who have given the 
department the benefit of their opinion. 
* -x- * # 

If it is proposed to have a hearing upon 
this bill, I respectfully ask that as much 
notice as possible be given, so that I may 
make sure to have present those represent- 
atives of tl: e bureau and such members of 
the boards and commissions as are more 
especially conversant with the question. 
Very sincerely, yours, 
(Signed) Charles Nagel. 

Hon. Joseph M. Dixon, 

United States Senate. 

The fur-seal "experts" alluded to by 
Secretary Nagel in the above letter are all 
"officially" and modestly presented, 
June 9, 1911, to the House Committee on 
Expenditures in the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, as follows (see p. 109, 
Hearing No. 2) (Hearing No. 14, pp. 914- 
918, July 25, 1912.): 



But Merriam swears that he 
has not advised Secretary Nagel, 
and does not know anything 
about it, either. 

The Chairman. Well, how long have 
you been on the advisory board? 

Dr. Merriam. Since the beginning. I 
do not remember the date; but I have 
been absent from the city during a num- 
ber of the sittings of that committee, as I 
am engaged in field work in the West at 
least half of every year, and therefore have 
not been in Washington at the time most 
of these meetings were held. 

The Chairman. Were you at the meet- 
ing of the advisory board that the previous 
witness referred to in his testimony? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember any 
such meeting. 

The Chairman. Are you a member of 
the board now? 

Dr. Merriam. Yes. 

* * -X- * 

Mr. Elliott. One question more. I 
understood you to say that you had not 
been in consultation with Mr. Bowers 
when he issued his orders for killing 13,000 
seals in 1910? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not think I was 
present at any conference when that mat- 
ter was up. 

Mr. Elliott. I have no further ques- 
tions to ask at this time. 

The Chairman. Is there anything else 
that you wish to state, Doctor? 

Dr. Merriam. No. (Hearing No. 11, 
May 16, 1912, pp. 692, 699.) 

Mr. Elliott. I wish to ask Dr. Merriam 
some questions. Dr. Merriam, when did 
you arrive on the seal islands for the first 
time in your life? 

Dr. Merriam. In the summer of 1891. 

Mr. Elliott. What was that date — 
about what time? 

Dr. Merriam. On the morning of July 
28. 

Mr. Elliott. When did you leave? 

Dr. Merriam. I left on August 10. 
(Hearing No. 11, May 16, 1912, p. 695.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



157 



United States Fish Commis- 
sioner Bowers declares that Dr. 
Merriam is one of his authorities 
who approves the killing on the 
islands — 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur- 
seal board and of the advisory board, 
fur-seal service, are as follows: 

Fur-Seal Board, 

Bureau op Fisheries. 
In the Bureau of Fisheries, general 
matters regarding the fur seals are con- 
sidered by a fur-seal board, consisting of 
the following: 

Dr. C. Hart Merriam, until recently 
chief of the Biological Survey, member 
of the Fur Seal Commission of 1890, and 

the greatest living authority on mammals. 

* * * * 

Mr. Bowers. I had in mind getting 
the best talent I could: I expected 
probable criticism. 

Mr. Townsend. I am not criticizing 
you now. 

Mr. Bowers. I endeavored to get the 
best talent it was possible to get and to 
act upon their advice in this fur-seal 
matter. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 
1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 



Lucas says that "Merriam and 
himself/' have " observed," and 
"have exact knowledge," etc. 

American Museum 

of Natural History, 
New York, February 24, 1912. 

Dear Sir: Absence from the city has 
delayed my replying to your favor of Feb- 
ruary 21, which I am very glad to receive. 

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl- 
edge in regard to the killing of seals under 
2 years of age during the years 1909 and 
1910 must, like that of others who did not 
see the actual killing, be based on the pub- 
lished statement of their weights. In ad- 
dition, however, I have my own experi- 
ence to aid in translating these weights. 
The advisory board recommended that no 
sealskins under 5 pounds in weight be 
taken, this being the average weight of a 2- 
year-old skin. The weight given by Elli- 
ott in 1875 was (see postscript) 5£ pounds, 
but this was based on an average of only 
10 skins. There is a bare possibility that 



Dr. Merriam denies having any 
knowledge of what Bowers has 
been doing — he would "not 
kill yearlings under any circum- 
stances." 

Mr. McGuire. Then, in ease anyone in 
the llnu.se of Representatrves has used 
your name as a person who would be op- 
posed to the killing on the islands they 
were wrong about your position? 

Dr. Merriam:. They were wrong. I 
have never taken any such position. I 
have always held (lie contrary. I have 
always stated, since the first time I went 
there, that conservative killing on the 
islands was a benefit to the herd and not 
an injury, but I should not allow the 
killing of yearlings under any circum- 
stances, and I should not kill more than 
75 per cent of the young on land at any 
one time. I would be sure to leave more 
than enough for possible contingencies. 

Mr. McGuire. Have you made any 
personal investigation as to whether the 
Government has killed excessively? 

Dr. Merriam. I know nothing about 

that from personal knowledge. 

* * * * 

Mr. Elliott. One question more. I 
understood you to say that you had not 
been in consultation with Mr. Bowers 
when he issued his orders for killing 
13,000 seals in 1910? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not think I was 
present at any conference when that 
matter was up. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 
694, 695. 699, May 4, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. & Labor.) 

Dr. Merriam swears that he has 
no exact knowledge, and has not 
"observed" with Lucas. 

Mr. Elliott. Doctor, while you were 
on the island did you ascertain the length 
and weight of a yearling seal? 

Dr. Merriam. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know anything 
about the length and the weight of a year- 
ling sealskin? 

Dr. Merriam. Nothing. 

Mr. Elmott. Did you make any meas- 
urements up there? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember off- 
hand. I examined a great many pup 
seals for sex. 

Mr. Elliott. You did not measure the 
yearlings, Doctor? 

Dr. Merriam. I measured or at. least 
weighed some of the seals, but I do not 
remember offhand. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you published any 
record of it? 

Dr. Merriam. T think not. 



158 



FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



these might be short 3-year-olds, but I 
will let the matter stand as stated. Ac- 
cording to the observations of Dr. Merriam 
and myself there is about 20 per cent vari- 
ation from the average either way, so that 
some 2-year-old sealskins would weigh but 
4 pounds and others would weigh 6 pounds. 
The island weights of the skins in 1909 
show that a few were taken under 5 
pounds, these being small 2-year-olds; and 
it is, of course, impossible to judge within 
a half a pound of the weight of a skin while 
it is on a seal. The accuracy of these 
weights is corroborated by the London 
Weights given. Please bear in mind that 
the terms ' ' large pups, " " middling pups, ' ' 
etc., given in the London sales table, re- 
fer to weights and not to ages. Conse- 
quently I haven't the slightest hesitancy 
in taking my affidavit that undersized 
skins have not been systematically taken. 
The yearling seals are very readily dis- 
tinguished from all others, as I hope I 
may have the pleasure of pointing out to 
you some day either here or in Brooklyn, 
and their skins would weigh from 3J to 4£ 
pounds. 



Mr. Elliott. No, and therefore you 
made no record that we could get hold of 
to-day? 

Dr. Merriam. I doubt if I measured 
any of the 2-year-old seals. 

Mr. Elliott. I have never been able to 
find it. 

(HearingNo.il, p. 699, May 16, 1912.) 



Pardon me for troubling you with a 
number of explanatory details, but I wish 
above all things to make it clear that I am 
not speaking by hearsay, or making state- 
ments without foundation, but that I am 
writing of matters with which I have a 
direct acquaintance. 

Faithfully, yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
Committee on the Library, 
House of Representatives. 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 27, 
1912.) 

Just before his cross-examina- 
tion, he saw seal bulls fighting 
fiercely on rookery. 

Dr. Merriam. I do not knowthe relative 
importance of the three natural causes 
of destruction of young pups. The three 
causes that seem to be the most potent, 
after doing away, of course, with pelagic 
sealing, are (1) the destruction of pups by 
the killer whale in the fall, when the killer 
whales circle around the islands close to 
shore and eat large numbers of pups; (2) 
the destruction by trampling on the rook- 
eries, especially during the battles be- 
tween the bulls; and (3) the destruction 
caused by an intestinal worm, which I 
think of much less consequence than at 
first supposed, though a number do die 
from the hookworm disease. These three 
causes kill a large number of pups each 
year- — pups of the season. 



But, after his cross-examina- 
tion, he never saw bulls fight- 
ing — just effects of it. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you see any fighting 
of the bulls? 

Dr. Merriam. I saw no general fighting 
of the old bulls on the breeding rookeries. 

Mr. Elliott. That is right. 

Dr. Merriam. But I saw much evi- 
dence of the fighting by lacerated bulls. 

Mr. Elliott. And do you not know it is 
a matter of official record that this fighting 
takes place many weeks before the fe- 
males arrive? 

Dr. Merriam. It mainly takes place 
early in the season. 

Mr. Elliott. That is right. 

Dr. Merriam. But is not entirely fin- 
ished before the females arrive. 

Mr. Elliott. But you never saw the 
finish, did you? 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



150 



Mr. McGuire. You arc no1 prepared to 
testify as to the relative destructiveness 
of these three agents? 

Dr. Merriam. No; 1 do not know; il 

would be only a guess. 
Mr. McGutre. What would be your 

guess, if you have any guess. 

Dr. Merriam. My guess would be thai 
the number killed by killer whales and by 
trampling on the rookeries, assuming the 
rookeries are pretty full — I do not mean at 
the present time, when the rookeries arc 
so empty — would be about even. 

Mr. McGuire. I see. 

Dr. Merriam. The killing by trampling 
and the killing by the killer whales 
would be about even, and the deaths 
produced by internal parasites would be 
very much fewer than half of those from 
either of the other causes. 

Mr. McGuire. Well, what steps would 
you take to reduce the killing by tram- 
pling? Suppose you were right in charge 
of that herd, what would you do? 

Dr. Merriam. The only recommenda- 
tion that has occurred to me is to lessen 
the number of superfluous males; in other 
words, to decrease the fighting. 

Mr. McGuire. You would do that by 
diminishing 

Dr. Merriam. By thinning out the 
superfluous males by killing many of 
them before they are old enough to go on 
the rookeries, so that the fighting would 
not be so severe, thus lessening the num- 
ber of young killed by trampling. The 
battles are very fierce, as everyone knows 
who witnesses them. 

Mr. McGuire. In proportion, then 
down to a certain number of males, as the 
number of males are diminished, the 
losses from trampling are less? 

Dr. Merriam. That seems rational. 

Mr. McGuire. Yes; that seems rational. 
What number of females would you leave 
for each male? What do you think would 
be a fair estimate? (Hearing No. 11, pp. 
694, 696; May 4, 1912.) 

Merriam tells the committee 
how he would manage so as to 
kill 75 per cent of the seals only. 



Mr. Elliott. I do not wish to have you 
do it, either, Doctor. Doctor, you said 
you could "kill down to 75 per cent." 
How do you know when you are "killing 
down to 75 per cent" — will you tell the 
committee how you arrive at that con- 
clusion? 

Dr. Merriam. I suppose if there are a 
hundred nonbreeding male seals on the 
hauling grounds, and 75 per cent of those 
are driven off, leaving 25, and the 75 are 
killed, we would have reason to suspect 
that we had killed 75 per cent of the non- 



Dr. Merriam. 1 am not clear enough 
about that to l>" willing to make a positive 
statement. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you sec any "tram- 
pling of pups? " 

Dr. Merriam. 1 saw trampling of pups, 
and 1 saw a male seal on a belated harem 
seize a female seal from another harem, 
and the bull of the harem to whom the fe- 
male belonged attacked the first one very 
savagely; that T saw, but it- was like the 
case of the voting seal, it was a belated 
case. Those incidents were mostly over 
before the time of my visit. 

Mr. Elliott. That is exactly as I 
understand it. You got there too late to 
see the breeding. Dr. Merriam, did you 
see any "cows killed and torn to pieces" 
by these bulls? 

Dr. Merriam. I saw a cow torn, as I 
have just stated, but not killed. Whether 
she died afterwards or not I do not know. 

Mr. Elliott. I published that in full 
detail in 1874. Did I not publish the fact 
at the same time that all this "fighting" 
takes place from six to two weeks before 
the general, full arrival of the cows, ex- 
cept in sporadic cases? (See p. 42, Spl. 
Bulletin 176, U. S. Com. Fish and Fish- 
eries, 1882.) 

The Chairman. The witness may not 
know what you wrote. 

Mr. Elliott. He is a student of natural 
history and a specialist on seals, and he 
certainly read that monograph of mine 
over and over again. You will admit that, 
will you not, Doctor? 

Dr. Merriam. I certainly have not 
read it for more than 20 years. 

Mr. Elliott. You read it when you 
went up there, all right. 

Dr. Merriam. I probably read it imme- 
diately on my return. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you 
see up there a pup trampled to death by 
a bull? 

Dr. Lucas. No. 

Elliott tells the committee 
that no man can kill down to 75 
per cent or 95 per cent, and know 
when he has done so. 

The Chairman. You make your state- 
ment to the committee, and we can get 
along better in that way. 

Mr. Elliott. They can not and do not 
know how to save that "5 per cent"; I 
will show you exactly how they do not 
save that "5 per cent" and can not pos- 
sibly save it; no living man can. 

The Chairman. You give us your state- 
ment. 

Mr. Elliott. I will. When they go 
out to drive up seals they drive up what 
they find on a given hauling ground. Say 



160 



FUR-SEAL HEED OE ALASKA. 



breeding seals present on that hauling 
ground at that time. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. Then, the next 
day — right there, that is all right to begin 
with; that is the first day of the driving. 
The next day you go ont and yon find 
another hundred. 

Dr. Merriam. Yes; we might find 
twice as many as on the first day, or only 
half as many, as these nonbreeding seals 
go back and forth in the ocean, which the 
old male seals do not. 

Mr. Elliott. You count your second 
drive of 100 seals. Doctor, and you take 
another "75 per cent"; how near are you 
to the fact that you have not killed the 
seals that you saved the first day? How 
do you know that you have spared that 
' ' 25 per cent " when you killed them again 
the next day you drove and then again 
took "75 per cent" of them? 

Dr. Merriam. I would not do all the 
driving from one rookery. There are a 
large number of rookeries on the island, 
which could be driven in succession. 

Mr. Elliott. Of course, you can not do 
it from one ' ' rookerj . " I did not say you 
did, but you drive from each and every 
hauling ground over and over again dur- 
ing the season — from six to ten or more 
times. (Hearing No. 11, p. 697, Mav 4, 
1912.) 



there are 100 on that given hauling ground 
they kill 95 of them and allow 5 to go, and 
that is 5 per cent saved. That point is 
clear, is it not? Then the 5 that are saved 
go back to the sea, and they go back to the 
hauling grounds,- perhaps, the same day, 
or even within a half hour they may return 
to the hauling grounds from whence they 
were driven. Then in two or three days 
the native "drivers" go out there again, 
and these men drive up another 100, and 
they kill them right down to 5 again, 
without knowing how many of that 5 were 
driven over the second time; so they have 
counted up as saving "10" when they 
have not saved " 5. " They go back again 
to that hauling ground six or seven times 
before the killing season is over and drive 
up 100 each time in the same way, and 
before they get through they do not faintly 
know how many of that original "5 " have 
been saved. While they theoretically 
have saved "30," yet they may not have 
even saved " 5 " and no living man knows. 

Dr. Evermann. The only answer to 
that is that it is'not true. 

Mr. Elliott. Why is it not true? 

Dr. Evermann. They have never 
killed up to 95 per cent. 

Mr. Elliott. How do you know? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not know it, but 
I simply have the information from the 
agents' reports. 

Mr. Elliott. The agents' reports show 
it is pretty close killing, and that they, 
too. do not know. I have followed and 
studied hundreds of seal drives, and I do 
know what a man can do in fact and what 
he can not do in the premises. (Hearing 
No. 14, p. 934, July 25, 1912.) 



II. 



The sworn statements of Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, who is one of the experts cited to the United 
States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 1911, 
and House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and Labor, June 9, 
1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for killing seals in violation of the 
laws and regulations, to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. * * * The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the follow- 
ing: * * * Dr. Leonhard Stejneger, head curator of biology, United States 
National Museum, for two years resident on the Russian seal islands, member of the 
Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, as a member of which he visited and studied 
all the fur-seal rookeries of Alaska, Russia, and Japan. His report on the Russian seal 
islands is the most critical and thoughtful that has been written. * ■* * (Hearing 
No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



161 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Stejneger swears that pups are 
trampled to death (1912): 

Investigation of Fur-Seal Industry 
of Alaska. 

<'0mmittee on expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and 
Labor, House of Representa- 
tives, 

Saturday, May 4, 1912. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, 
and McGuire. 

statement of leonhard stejneger. 

Leonhard Stejneger, having been 
duly sworn, was examined, and testified 
as follows: 

Dr. Stejneger. In that case, I should 
say I first came to the Commander Islands 
in 1882 and stayed until the fall of 1883, 
remaining the winter. 

Mr. McGuire. Continuously? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes. I saw the whole 
business from beginning to end during 
two seasons. I mapped the rookeries, 
and I have made a very elaborate report 
on that. This [handing book to the chair- 
man] gives all the data. 

In 1896 I was appointed a member of 
the Fur Seal Investigation Commission, 
of which Dr. Jordan was the chairman. 
We went up early in the season and I 
stayed on the Pribilof Islands for 10 days 
with the other members of the commis- 
sion and went all over the rookeries at 
that time, and did part of the counting of 
the rookeries on the American islands, 
and then went over to the Commander 
Islands again and inspected the rookeries 
there, mapped the distribution of the 
seals on the rookeries then as compared 
to what they were in 1882, 1883, and 1895. 

Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony 
with respect to the killing of the pups by 
the fighting of battles by the males is 
based upon not only your general informa- 
tion, that you have been able to obtain in 
general way, but as well upon two years' 
actual Stay upon seal islands? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual 
observation? 

Dr. Stejneger. Surveys of the rook- 
eries. 

Mr. McGuire. You have personally 
observed those conditions, have you? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. 



Stejneger denies that pups are 
trampled to death (1898): 

It is certainly very significant that on 
Bering Island over a thousand pups are 
yearly driven to the killing ground, 
there to be released without any visible 
harm coming to them worth mentioning. 
If these newly-born seals can stand to be 
driven three-fourths of a mile from 
Kishotchnoye and to be repeatedly 
trampled upon by the larger ones piling 
up four high, or more, on top of them, 
it stands to reason that the vigorous 
holustioki, or even the females, as a 
whole can suffer but little injury from the 
same cause. (Fur-Seal Investigations, 
Part IV, 1898, p. 101, by Leonhard 
Stejneger. 1 ) 



1 Note. 

Dr. Stejneger. I should think that if they were left and had been left for some tune by themselves it 
would be the fighting of the males. 

Mr. McGuire. The fighting of the males and trampling of the pups? 

Dr. Stejneger. Fighting of the males and trampling of the pups. (Hearing No. 11, p. 702, May 4, 1912, 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.) 



21588—13- 



-11 



162 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Stejneger denies the quotation: ButStejnegeris correctly quoted. 



Committee on Expenditures in the 
Department of Commerce and 
Labor, House of Representa- 
tives, 

Saturday, May 4. 1912. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, 
and McGuire. 



Astounding as it appears, there can be 
but little doubt that the single old bull 
had served the 526 females on this rookery 
(Poludinnoye) and was, moreover, in fit 
condition to keep the youngei bull at a 
respectful distance as late in the season as 
July 30. (Fur Seal Investigations, Pt. 
IV, 1898, p. 168. by Leonhard Stejneger.) 



STATEMENT OF LEONHARD STEJNEGER. 

Leonhard Stejneger, having been 
duly sworn, was examined, and testified 
as follows: 

Mr. Elliott. Drive all classes — bulls, 
cows, and pups up together? 

Dr. Stejneger. Gathering in eveiy 
seal that they could lay their hands on in 
the Russian Islands, so as not to let pelagic 
sealers get hold of them. 

Mr. Elliott. Since you have suggested 
that remarkable order of work on the Rus- 
sian Islands, you are quoted by one of 
your associates recently, before another 
committee, as saying that one bull seal 
was sufficient to serve 250 or 500 females. 
Are you really properly quoted there? 

Dr. Stejneger. I am certainly mis- 
quoted. 

Dr. Evermann. There is no such quo- 
tation. 

Mr. Elliott. I have it here published. 

Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elliott to 
produce it. Now is the time to pro- 
duce it. 

The Chairman. Do you have it with 
you? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; it is here, and I will 
put the whole thing in right now. I have 
got it right here. I will put it right in, 
and have it printed. 

Dr. Evermann. I insist it be put in 
how. We want it now. 

Mr. Elliott. It will go light in. Now, 
I have got it right heie. 

The Chairman. Take your time and do 
it. Dr. Evermann wants it produced, 
and I think it ought to be placed in the 
record if it can be found. 

Dr. Evermann. If he has it, the thing 
to do is to show it. 

Mr. Elliott. Here it is. [Exhibiting 
paper to the committee.] Now, right 
here, in the Seattle Sundav Times, issue 
of October 11, 1908, I state to Mr. Frank 
H. Hitchcock, who has quoted from Dr. 
Jordan's letter to him, dated January 12, 
1904 (Swarthmoie College, Pennsylvania), 
[reading] : 

"Now, most all of these men know bet- 
ter, but are silent in the shadow of Jordan. 
Even Stejneger, with his fairy tale of two 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



163 



bulls being enough to serve 500 cows 
(which Jordan so gravely quotes here to 
you with all of the pompous gravity and 
true coarseness of ignorance) — even he can 
not find a trace to-day of either those 'two 
hulls' or '500 cows' which he so specifi- 
callyjdescribes on Copper Island in 1896 — 
good reason — they are extinct. That 
ghost dance has ended forever over there. 
But Jordan does not even know it at this 
late hour." 

Committee on Expenditures in the 

Department op Commerce and Labor, 

House op Representatives, 

Saturday, May 4, 1912. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present: Messrs. Young, McGillicuddy, and McGuire. 

i statement of leonhard stejneger. 

Leonhard Stejneger, having been duly sworn, was examined, and testified as 
follows: 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL ON STEJNEGER AND EVERMANN. 



Mr. Elliott. Drive all classes — bulls, 
cows, and pups up together? 

Dr. Stejneger. Gathering in every 
seal that they could lay their hands on in 
the Russian Islands, so as not to let 
pelagic sealers get hold of them. 

Mr. Elliott. Since you have sug- 
gested that remarkable order of work on 
the Russian Islands, you are quoted by 
one of your associates recently, before an- 
other committee, as saying that one bull 
seal was sufficient to serve 250 or 500 fe- 
males. Are you reallv properlv quoted 
there? 

Dr. Stejneger. I am certainly mis- 
quoted. 

Dr. Evermann. There is no such 
quotation. 

Mr. Elliott. I have it here published. 

Dr. Evermann. I ask Mr. Elliott to 
produce it. Now is the time to produce 
it. 

The Chairman. Do you have it with 
you? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; it is here, and I will 
put the whole thing in right now. I have 
got it right here. I will put it right in, 
and have it printed. 

Dr. Evermann. I insist it be put in 
now. We want it now. 

Mr. Elliott. It will go right in. Now, 
I have got it right here. 

The Chairman. Take your time and 
do it. Dr. Evermann wants it produced, 
and I think it ought to be placed in the 
record if it can be found. 

Dr. Evermann. If he has it. the thing 
to do is to show it. 

Mr. Elliott. Here it is. [Exhibiting 
paper to the committee.] Now. right 
here, in the Seattle Sunday Times, issue 



Astounding as it appears, there can he 
but little doubt that the single old bull 
had served the 526 females on this rookery 
(Poludinnoye), and moreover, was in fit 
condition to keep the younger bull at a 
respectful distance as late in the season 
as July 30. (Fur Seal Investigations, 
Pt. IV, 1898, p. 168, Leonhard Stejneger. ) 

Dr. Evermann. But permit me to 
quote the words of several distinguished 
zoologists who have studied the fur seal 
on the land and in the sea. * * * 

First. I want to quote from Dr. David 
Starr Jordan, president of Stanford Uni- 
versity. * * * Therefore only 1 bull 
in 30 is absolutely necessary under pres- 
ent conditions. That this limit could be 
materially lowered without positive dan- 
ger to the herd is conclusively shown by 
t ne * * * observations of the past 
three years, as detailed by Dr. Stejneger, 
show that a male fur seal is capable of 
attending to the wants of between 100 and 
200 cows. * * * (Hearings on H. R. 
16571. Jan. 4, 1912, pp. 129, 130, H. Com. 
Foreisri Affairs. I 



164 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



of October 11, 1908, I state to Mr. Frank 
H. Hitchcock, who has quoted from Dr. 
Jordan's letter to him, dated January 12, 
1904 (Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania), 
[reading] : 

"Now, most all of these men know 
better, but are silent in the shadow of 
Jordan. Even Stejneger, with his fairy 
tale of 2 bulls being enough to serve 500 
cows (which Jordan so gravely quotes here 
to you with all of the pompous gravity and 
true coarseness of ignorance) — even he 
can not find a trace to-day of either those 
'two bulls' or '500 cows' which he so 
specifically describes on Copper Island 
in 1896 — good reason — they are extinct. 
That ghost dance has ended forever over 
there. But Jordan does not even know 
it at this late hour." 

Stejneger swears he did not rec- 
ommend renewal of the lease : 

The Chairman. Are you a member of 
the advisory board on fur seals? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You say yor have been 
together once or twice. When was that? 

Dr. Stejneger. The first time, I think, 
was just before the expiration of the old 
lease, and when the board recommended 
that the Government take over the sealing 
business and not let the islands to any 
company to exploit. 

The Chairman. You say that was done 
for the purpose of discussing whether there 
should be another lease or not? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes. We were asked 
our opinion whether that would be the 
better procedure for the Government, to 
undertake the sealing itself or to lease it 
to a company. That is my recollection. 
I want you to understand that so far as my 
understanding goes, these were the meet- 
ings in which I have taken part. There 
may have been others, for all I know. 

The Chairman. At this meeting, when 
it was discussed as to whether there should 
be a re-leasing of the islands, what was 
your decision in the matter? 

Dr. Stejneger. Our recommendation 
was that the Government take over the 
whole business. 

The Chairman. And not lease the 
islands any longer? 

Dr. Stejneger. And not lease the is- 
lands any longer to any company. 

The Chairman. And you say that you 
met at the suggestion of the Secretary of 
Commerce and Labor? 

Dr. Stejneger. That is my recollec- 
lection. We were appointed or we got a 
letter from the Secretary of Commerce 
and Labor asking us to serve in an advi- 
sory capacity to him. We determined 



Sworn proof submitted that he 
did recommend renewal of lease: 

Exhibit No. 3, being a "draft of new 
lease for seal islands" handed to George 
M. Bowers, December 15, 1909, by Barton 
W. Evermann and said draft "is prepared 
by the Bureau of Fisheries" and "by its 
advisory board on fur-seal service, in com- 
pliance with your request" (i. e., George 
M. Bowers), as follows: 

Exhibit No. 3. 

Department of 
Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, December 15, 1909. 
Mr. Commissioner: There is handed 
you herewith for your consideration a 
draft of lease of the seal islands. This has 
been prepared by Mr. Lembkey and my- 
self in compliance with your request. We 
have endeavored to make the form of the 
lease agree with the recommendations re- 
cently made by the advisory board, fur- 
seal service, in conference with the fur- 
seal board. For your convenience a num- 
ber of references and citations have been 
indicated. It is believed that an exam- 
ination of this tentative draft will enable 
the Secretary to arrive at the exact form 
desired. 

Respectfully, 

Barton W. Evermann. 
Assistant in charge Scientific Inquiry. 

The lease should be renewed. It is 
foolish to abolish killing on land while 
seals are being killed in the water. Ces- 
sation of killing on land means encourage- 
ment to pelagic sealing. Should pelagic 
or sea killing be abolished, it might be 
well to have a closed season on land as 
well, to allow the herd to recuperate. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



165 



nothing; we just recommended. We 
gave our opinion on certain points and 
recommended it; that is all. 

The Chairman. Did you put that in 
writing and send it to the Secretary? 

Dr. Stejneger. I think there was un- 
doubtedly a letter at that time. 

The Chairman. Was it your opinion 
that, the further leasing of the islands 
would not be for the best interests of the 
Government? 

Dr. Stejneger. Most decidedly. 
(Hearing No. 11. pp. 675, 676, May 4, 
1912.) 



Stejneger says Hitchcock 
agreed with him in opposition to 
the " Hitchcock rules" issue: 

Mr. Elliott. One more question: When 
Chief Clerk Hitchcock, of the Department 
of Commerce and Labor, was preparing 
the "Hitchcock rules," putting a check 
on this killing of all those seals which you 



Department of 
Commerce and Labor, 

Bureau op Fisheries, 
Washington, December 16. 190 r ). 
The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 
last announced that the Campfire Club, 
of New York, had inaugurated a cam- 
paign to save the fur-seal herd through 
legislation designed to prevent the re- 
leasing of the sealing right, the cessation 
of all killing on the islands for 10 years 
except for natives' food, and to secure 
the opening of negotiations with Great 
Britain to revise the regulations of the 
Paris tribunal. As the result of this 
movemant. on December 7 three resolu- 
tions were introduced by Senator Dixon, 
of Montana, one of which embodies the 
provisions before mentioned, the other 
two calling for the publication of fur-seal 
correspondence and reports since 1904. 

As the object of this movement is at 
variance with the program of this bureau 
and of the recommendations of the ad- 
visory fur-seal board, notably in the plan 
to prevent killing and the renewal of the 
seal island lease, the advisability is sug- 
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lu- 
cas, and Stanley-Brown use their influ- 
ence with such members of the Campfire 
Club as they may be acquainted with 
with the object of correctly informing the 
club as to the exact present status of the 
seal question and of securing its coopera- 
tion to effect the adoption of the measures 
advocated by this bureau. 

The attached letter is prepared, having 
in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Evermann. 

Exhibit No. 7, being the official letter 
of "George M. Bowers, commissioner," 
to Secretary ( 'ommerce and Labor, dated 
Februarys. 1910, inclosing copies of three 
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease 
and giving the reasons of the writers for 
such renewal, to wit. H. H. Taylor, 
presidenl N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated 
January L'7. 1910: C. H. Townsend. for 
" fur-seal advisory board." dated January 
31, 1910; Alfred Fraser. London agent for 
the N. A. C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 
1910. as follows. (Hearing No. 3, pp. 
152-157, July 6, 1911.) 

Sworn proof submitted that 
Hitchcock issued the rules in op- 
position to Stejneger's wish: 

Mr. Elliott. He did? Right there I 
want to ask you about this: On page 53 of 
"Hearing on Fur Seals," March 10, 1904, 
Ways and Means Committee, House of 
Representatives, Mr. Hitchcock, under 



166 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



recommended the slaughter of just now 
[to Mr. Bowers], did he consult with you 
about this matter? 

Dr. Stejneger. He did. 

Mr. Elliott. And you advised him to 
do just what you said now? 

Dr. Stejneger. I did. 

Mr. Elliott. What did he say to you? 
Do you remember? 

Dr. Stejneger. He said that that was 
not in his hands. He said it was up to 
Congress. He said he consulted me, not 
as to What he should do, but as to what he 
should answer to the committee that was 
then handling the question in Congress. 

Mr. Elliott. Did he agree with you? 

Dr. Stejneger. He did. (Hearing No. 
11, p. 682, May 4, 1912.) 



All killing of fur seals on 
Pribilof Islands is ordered under 
" recommendation of advisory 
board," of which Stejneger is a 
member : 

Mr. Bowers. I have referred, in my 
report of June 30, 1909, to the Alaskan 
fur-seal service as follows: 

"On the establishment of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, in 1903, the 
Alaskan fur-seal service was transferred 
thereto from the Department of the Treas- 
ury, to which it had been attached for 
many years. In the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor this service formed a 
distinct branch and was administered 
through the Secretary's office until De- 
cember 28, 1908, when it was transferred 
to the Bureau of Fisheries. The Com- 
missioner of Fisheries has appointed a 
special board, composed of five members 
of the bureau's staff who have personal 
knowledge of the Alaskan fur seals, and to 
this board will be assigned for considera- 
tion and recommendation all matters per- 
taining to the seal life on the Pribilof 



the caption of an additional statement, 
says: 

"I want to say to the committee that 
the restrictions I proposed this morning 
would be considered extreme by these 
gentlemen. There is not one of these 
scientists who has suggested measures 
that are nearly as radical as those I have 
proposed. I have purposely made the 
regulations somewhat extreme, in the 
view of these gentlemen, with the idea of 
being on the safe side, particularly during 
the first year of the department's admin- 
istration of the seal service. " 

And he is alluding to yourself and your 
associates? 

Dr. Stejneger. Where is that allusion? 

Mr. Elliott. Preceding here. You will 
find it on this page. 

* * * * * 

Mr. Elliott. Therefore, Mr. Hitchcock 
did not agree with you, did he? 

Dr. Stejneger. I did not say he did 
not agree with me. 

Mr. Elliott. I thought you said he 
agreed with you? 

Dr. Stejneger. That he could do it. 
That does not mean necessarily that the 
rules should be framed accordingly. 
That is altogether different. 

Mr. Elliott. In other words, Mr. 
Hitchcock did not take your advice when 
he proposed those rules? 

Dr. Stejneger. He certainly did not. 

Mr. Elliott. That is what I want; that 
is it, Doctor. (Hearing No. 11, pp. 682- 
684, May 4, 1912.) 

Stejneger swears that he does 
not know whether the killing has 
been in violation of law or not: 



The Chairman. Do you know whether, 
of your own personal knowledge, seals 
have been killed that were too small or 
too young, under the act of Congress? 

Dr. Stejneger. I do not know, be- 
cause I have not been on the island since 
1897— since 1896. 

***** 

The Chairman. Mr. Elliott, do you 
want to ask him any questions? 

Mr. Elliott. I have only a few ques- 
tions to ask him. Dr. Stejneger, what is 
the length of a yearling fur seal of the 
Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. I could not tell you. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you ever measured 
one of the Alaskan herd? 

Dr. Stejneger. No. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know any- 
thing about the length of a skin of a year- 
ling seal as taken from the body? 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



16' 



Islands, the blue foxes, and other animal 
resources on the islands, and the Govern- 
ment's relations to the natives and the 
lessees. On January 13, 1909, the Secre- 
tary, on the recommendation of the com- 
missioner, appointed an advisory board 
for the fur-seal service, consisting of Dr. 
David Starr Jordan, Dr. Leonard Stej- 
neger, Dr. C. Hart Merriam, Mr. Frederic 
A. Lucas, Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Hon. 
Frank H. Hitchcock, and Mr. Charles H. 
Townsend. The Government is thus 
enabled to avail itself of the expert knowl- 
edge possessed by these naturalists and 
officials, who, through visits to the seal 
islands and through previous duty on 
fur-seal commissions or in the adminis- 
tration of the fur-seal service, are familiar 
with the problems involved in the man- 
agement of the seal herd and the seal 
islands. (Hearing* No. 2, p. 78, June 9, 
1911.) 



Stejneger swears that pups are 
naturally trampled to death by 
the bulls, but — 

Mr. McGuire. According to your ob- 
servation, now, Doctor, if those herds 
were left alone untouched by man, what 
would you regard as the principal agencies 
of destruction of that animal life? 

Dr. Stejneger. The principal destruc- 
tion would probably be the killing or the 
death of the old by natural causes. 

Mr. McGuire. Would you regard that 
as about the second most destructive 
agencj ? 

Dr. Stejneger. I should think that if 
they were left and had been lei't for some 
time by themselves it would be the fight- 
ing of the males. 

Mr. McGuire. The righting of the 
males and trampling of the pups? 

Dr. Stejneger. Fighting of the males 
and trampling of the pups. 

Mr. McGuire. Then, where they were 
left untouched until they had accumu- 
lated large numbers of males, would 
there have been trampling under those 
conditions? 

Dr. Stejneger. That is the greatest 
danger to the herd. 

Mr. McGuire. Now, your testimony 
with respect to the killing of the pups by 
the fighting of battles by the males is 
based upon not only your general infor- 
mation, that you have been able to ob- 
tain in general way, but as well upon 
two years' actual stay upon seal islands? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. 



Dr. Stejneger. Of a yearling seal? I 
do not know; I have never seen a yearling 
seal killed on the American islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Were you in consulation 
with Mr. Bowers when he ordered the 
killing of 12,920 seals on the seal islands 
in 1910? 

Dr. Stejneger. Do you mean in per- 
sonal special consultation with Mr. Bow- 
ers? 

Mr. Elliott. Did Mr. Bowers 

Dr. Stejneger. Not outside of what I 
have said in the board. 

Mr. Elliott. No, no. I asked you, 
did Mr. Bowers advise with you? 

Dr. Stejneger. Personally? 

Mr. Elliott. Not when he issued his 
order to kill 12,920 seals in 1910? 

Dr. Stejneger. I do not quite under- 
stand whether it was with me personally 
or as a member of the board. 

Mr. Elliott. Well, as a member of the 
board, do you remember any consultation 
with him about issuing those orders? 

Dr. Stejneger. No; I do not remem- 
ber. (HearingNo.il, pp, 679, 681,Mav4, 
1911.) 

Lucas swears that pups are not 
trampled to death by the bulls: 

Mr. Elliott. How many days wen- you 
on the islands in 1896? I want that 
answered. 

Dr. Lucas. On the islands and at sea 
on the Rush, going to and from St. Paul 
and St. George 

Mr. Elliott. That is not my question, 
sir. 

Dr. Lucas. I will have to figure it up 
if you want the exact number of days. 

Mr. Elliott. Then you don't know? 

Dr. Lucas. I can find that out. 1 have 
it on record here. 

The Chairman. About how many 
days? 

Dr. Lucas. About 50 days in 1896, 
allowing aboul 9 days' time spent at sea 
going to and from one island to another. 

Mr. Elliott. In 1897 how many days 
were you on the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days. 

Mr. Elliott. On the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number 
I have the exact data right here. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you 
see up there a pup trampled to death b\ 
a bull? 

Dr. Lucas. No. (Hearing No. 12, p. 
719, May 16, 1912.) 



168 



FUE-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Mr. McGuire. And upon your actual 
observation? 

Dr. Stejneger. Surveys of the rook- 
eries . 

Mr. McGuire. You have personally 
observed those conditions, have you? 

Dr. Stejneger. Yes, sir. (Hearing No. 
11, pp. 701, 702, 703, May 11, 1912.) 

Stejneger would kill yearlings 
if the law did not prevent, but — 

The Chairman. Do you know whether 
of your own personal knowledge seals 
have been killed that were too small or too 
young, under the act of Congress? 

Dr^ Stejneger. I do not know, because 
I have not been on the island since 1897— 
since 1896. 

If I may be allowed to make a state- 
ment, since you ask whether I had any 
statement to make, the law is the law, and 
has to be lived up to; but whether seal is 
killed as 1-year-old or when older could not 
affect the seal herd to any extent and could 
not hurt it at all; you might just as well 
kill 1-year-olds or 2-year-olds or 3-year-olds. 
As a matter of fact, you could not kill as 
large a percentage of 1-year-olds as of 2 or 
3 year olds. The 1-year-olds would be 
2-year-olds the next year, and then you 
would kill them anyhow. The Govern- 
ment would realize a little less money for 
the smaller skins. That would be the 
whole result. (Hearing No. 11, p. 679, 
May 4, 1912.) 



Merriam would not kill year- 
lings "under any circumstances. " 

Mr. McGuire. Then, in case anyone in 
the House of Representatives has used yonr 
name as a person who would be opposed to 
the killing on the islands they were wrong 
about your position? 

Dr. Merriam. They were wrong. I 
have never taken any such position. I 
have always held the contrary. 1 have 
always stated, since the first time I went 
there, that conservative killing on the 
islands was a benefit to the herd and not an 
injury, but I should not allow the killing 
of yearlings under any circumstances, and 
I should not kill more than 75 per cent of 
the young on land at any one time. I 
would be sure to leave more than enough 
for possible contingencies. 

Mr. McGuire. Have you made any 
personal investigation as to whether the 
Government has killed excessively? 

Dr. Merriam. I know nothing about 
that from personal knowledge. (Hearing 
No. 11. pp. 694. 695, May 4, 1912.) 



III. 

The sivorri statements of Dr. Barton W. Evermann, ivho is one of the experts cited to the 
United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 
1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and. 
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals in 
violation of the laiv and regulations , to wit: 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. I ought to have another statement here that I would like 
to have offered, but I am not able to find it at present. If the gentlemen will permit, 
I wish to say that these regulations are in conformity to recommendations made by 
this advisory board. 

Mr. Cable. Give the names of the members of the advisory board. 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur- 
seal service, are as follows: 

Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska fisheries 
service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the fur- 
seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the -North Pacific and Bering 
Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911 .) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



169 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



He stretches; before his cross- 
examination he spent " six months 
on our seal islands studying," etc. 



COMMITTEE ON EXPENDITURES 

ix the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, House 

of Representatives. 
Washington, Saturday, April 20. 1912. 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman), 
presiding. 

Present: Hon. James Young, Daniel J. 
McGillicuddy, Bird S. McGuire, and 
Charles E. Patton. 

testimony of barton w. evermann. 

The witness was sworn by the chairman. 

Dr. Evermann. Within the last 25 
years nearly a score of the most distin- 
guished naturalists not only of this coun- 
try, but of Great Britain, Canada, and 
Japan have visited our seal islands for the 
spec ific purpose of studying the habits ol 
the fur seals and the problems connected 
with the proper management of the herd 
Among these gentlemen I may mention 
the following. (Reading:) 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermanji, in 
charge of the Alaska fisheries service, 
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in 
1892. spent six months on our seal islands 
in the North Pacific and on the Russian 
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook- 
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations 

The Chairman. You take most of this 
information you get from records and 
documents, do yen not, Doctor? 

Dr. Evermann. I have been in the 
islands myself. 

The Chairman. Or from actual per- 
a mal observations? 

Dr. Evermann. 1 have been in the 
Beal islands myself once. 

The Chairman. When was that? 

Dr. Evermann. In 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. How long were you there? 

Dr. Evermann. I spent six months on 
a fur-seal investigation in 1892. i Hearing 
No. 10. p. 518.)' 



He shrinks; after his cross-ex- 
amination he "spent only 10 
days on our seal islands study- 
ing," etc. 

Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor, House 
of representative*, 
Thursday, April 25, 1912 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock 
a. m.. pursuant to recess taken, Hon. John 
H. Rothermel (chairman) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BARTON W. EVERMANN. 
CHIEF. ALASKA FISHERIES SERVK I 
BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Mr. Elliott. Dr. Evermann, when did 

you first go to the seal islands? 

Dr. Evermann. In the spring of 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. When did you land there? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the 
exact date when 1 landed on either of the 
islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know the month? 

Dr. Evermann. It was either July or 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. Was that your first land- 
ing? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Which island did you 
land on? 

Dr. Evermann. I first landed oi 
Paid and later I went to St. George. 

Mr. Elliott. About what time aid 
land on St. Paul'? 

Dr. Evermann. Some time in Jul 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. How long did you 
there? 

Dr. Evermann. Only a lev. di 

Mr. Elliott. What do you mean b 
"few days'"? 

Dr. Evermann. The exact numb, 
days I can not recall. 

Mr. Elliott. Was it two days? 

Dr. Evermann. It was about a week or 
10 days. (I have since consulted the 
record; I find I was on the Pribilof Is- 
lands continuously from July 19 to 
July 31.) , 

Mr. Elliott. You stayed on St. Paul 
Island all that time? 

Dr. Evermann. I was on doth islands. 

Mr. Elliott. You went over to St. 
George? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. How long were you on the 
islands? 

Dr. Evermann. Only a very few days. 

Mr. Elliott. That is what I thought. 
(Hearing No. 10. p. 621. 1 



170 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Evcrmann compelled to admit 
that he has had only a few days' 
experience on the seal islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Dr. Evermann, when did 
you first go to the seal islands? 

Dr. Eve rm ann. In the spring of 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. When did you land there? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the 
exact date when I landed on either of the 
islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know the month? 

Dr. Evermann. It was either July or 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. Was that your first land- 
ing? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Which island did you 
land on? 

Dr. Evermann. I first landed on St. 
Paul and later I went to St. George. 

Mr. Elliott. About what time did you 
Land on St. Paul? 

Dr. Evermann. Some time in July or 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. How long did you stay 
there? 

Dr. Evermann. Only a few days. 

Mr. Elliott. What do you mean by a 
' ' few days' ' ? 

Dr. Evermann. The exact number of 
days I can not recall. 

Mr. Elliott. Was it two days? 

Dr. Evermann. It was about a week 
or 10 days. (I have since consulted the 
.record; I find I was on the Pribilof Islands 
continuously from July 19 to July 31.) 
(Hearing No. 10, p. 621, Apr. 24, 1912.) 

The "Carlisle rules/' of May 
14, 1896, which prohibit the kill- 
ing of yearling male seals, and 
which have never been amended 
or revised until 1904, when a 5|- 
pound limit was made in lieu of 
the 6-pound limit. 

Treasury Department. 
Office of the Secretary, 
Washington, D. C, May 14, 1896. 

Mr. J. B. Crowley, 

Special Agent in Charge of the Seal 
Islands, care North American Com- 
mercial Co., San Francisco, Cal. 

Sir: I inclose herewith for your infor- 
mation copy of a letter dated 13th in- 
stant, addressed to me by the Secretary 
of the Treasury and approved by him, in 
relation to the taking of fur seals on the 
Priblof Islands and determining the 
quota of such seals to be allowed the 
North American Commercial Co. during 
the season of 1896. You are instructed to 
permit said company to take on the 
islands during the season of 1896 all kill- 



Arid while there learned noth- 
ing about the size and weight of 
sealskins- — he knows nothing.. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you make any rec- 
ords of lengths and measurements, weights 
and growth of seals while you were there? 

Dr. Evermann. I did of some seals 
which I assisted in taking on the Com- 
mander Islands. 

Mr. Elliott. No, no; I mean these 
islands. 

Dr. Evermann. I made notes of 
weights and measurements so far as I 
recall at this time. I did not weigh or 
measure any seals on St. Paul or St. 
George. 

Mr. Elliott. You say your observa- 
tion on the islands does not cover that 
point at all? 

Dr. Evermann. My statement regard- 
ing the measurements and weights of fur 
seals is the one to which I called attention 
yesterday. 

Mr. Elliott. I know; I have not dis- 
puted that, but I want to find what you 
did on the island. You didn't do any- 
thing, you say. 

Dr. Evermann. I didn't say that. 

Mr. Elliott. You didn't weigh or 
measure a seal on the islands, did you? 

Dr. Evermann. My recollection is that 
I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. If you had, you would 
have made notes of it, wouldn't you? 

Dr. Evermann. I presume I would. 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 621-622, Apr. 24, 
1912.) 

Dr. Evermann, under oath, 
sWears that no regulations were 
ever issued by the Government 
forbidding the killing of yearling 
seals, except in 1904 and 1905. 
A falsehood, and studied to de- 
ceive the committee. 

Dr. Evermann. 

2. The second charge is that at least 
128,478 yearling male seals were killed by 
the lessee from 1890 to 1909, both inclu- 
sive, contrary to law and the regulations. 

In answer to this charge it should be 
sufficient to say that the law has never 
made it illegal to kill yearling male seals : 
nor has it ever been contrary to the regu- 
lations to kill yearling male seals, except 
in the seasons of 1904 and 1905} as is shown 
by the regulations for the various years to 
which I have called your attention. 
Therefore, even if 128,478 yearling male 
seals have been killed since 1890 (which 
is not admitted), they could not have 
been killed illegally, because there was 
no law against killing yearling male seals, 
and there has been no regulation against 



JTUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



171 



able male seals over and above the num- 
ber which, in your opinion, is sufficient to 
fertilize the female seals, the number 
taken not to exceed in any event 30,000 
seals. The killing of yearlings and seals 
whose skins weigh less than 6 pounds is 
prohibited. 

Respectfully, yours, . 

(Signed) C. S. Hamlin, 

Acting Secretary. 

(Official entry of the above on p. 14 of 
the journal of the chief special agent in 
charge of the seal islands, St. Paul 
Island, under date of entry as follows: 
"Tuesday, June 17, 1896.") 



Evermami swears that there 
are no regulations by Nagel which 
prohibit the killing of yearlings. 



Dr. Evermann. Page 8, Mr. Elliott 
says: 

"The law and the regulations of Mr. 
Nagel forbid the killing of any seal ' under 
two years of age.' " 

The law has never forbidden the killing 
of male seals under two years of age; nor 
has any regulation issued by Secretary 
Nagel. (Hearing No. 10, p. 585, Apr. 24, 
1912.) 



killing yearling male seals, except in ID04 
to 1909. 

But I shall not rest with that answer. 
Although it has always been perfectly 
legal to kill 1-year-old male seals, and 
although the regulations, with the excep- 
tion of the few years mentioned, have 
never said that 1-year-old male seals 
should not be killed, nevertheless the 
agents' reports state and show that it has 
never been the practice during these 
twenty-odd years to kill any seals under 
2 years old. This has been explicitly 
stated again and again by the agents, and 
the department has no reason to doubt the 
truth of their reports. (Hearing No. 10, 
p. 493, Apr. 24, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

But Lembkey swears, February 
29, 1912, that there are such regu- 
lations, and which have the fori e 
of law. 

Dr. Evermann. On page 8, line 8 from 
the bottom, you say: 

''The law and regulations of Mr. Nagel 
forbids the killing of any seal 'under two 
years of age." " 

Is that true. 

Mr. Elliott. That is true. 

Dr. Evermann. Does the law say so? 

Mr. Elliott. The 'law and regula- 
tions" say so; yes. 

Dr. Evermann. Does the law say so? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; the regulations have 
the force of law. (Hearing No. 10, p. 
613, Apr. 24, 1912.) 

Mr. Lembkey. It may be useful to bear 
in mind, however, that small seals and 
female seals may be taken at any time for 
natives' food without violation of existing 
law. 

Mr. Madden. It would not be allowed 
under the regulations? 

Mr. Lembkey. Under the regulations 
it would not be, but it would not be an 
illegal act to kill those if the regulations 
would allow such practice. I am just 
bringing out that point. 

Mr. Madden. You say that the regula- 
tions do not allow it? 

Mr. Lembkey. No. 

Mr. Madden. And the regulations have 
the effect of law? 

Mr. McGillictjddy. Yes. 

Mr. Madden. If they were killed it 
would be a violation of law. 

Mr. Lembkey. It would; if the regula- 
tions permitted it, however, it would be 
in accordance with existing law. 

It should be remembered also that the 
law does not prohibit the killing of any 
male seal over 1 year or 12 months of age, 
although regulations of the department 
do prohibit the killing of anything less 



172 



FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



Assistant Agent Judge, in order 
to save the "spared" 3-year-olds 
from being all killed as "food 
seals," urges a 7-pound maximum 
skin limit for such seals. 



Presuming that branding of bachelors 
is to continue, a rule fixing a maximum 
weight of 7 pounds for food skins taken in 
the fall would save the 3-year-olds, which 
I take to be the all-important object. 
(Appendix, A, p. 180: Report of Asst. 
Agent Jas. Judge, St. George Island, June 
5, 1905, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor, June 24, 1911.) 



than 2 years old, or those seals which have 
returned to the islands from their second 
migration. 

Mr. Townsend. That is a regulation of 
the Secretary of Commerce and Labor? 

Mr. Lembkey. Of Commerce and 
Labor; yes, sir. (Hearing No. 9, p. 372, 
Mar. 1, 1912.) 

But Lembkey, with the Bureau 
of Fisheries "science," orders an 
"8^-pound" maximum food skin 
limit, so as to get those "re- 
served" seals of June and July 
in October and November follow- 
ing. 

Mr. McGuire. Right there, Mr. Lemb- 
key, did you prohibit their killing them? 

Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

Mr. Elliott. In 1904? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you do it in 1905? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. How did you do it? You 
had no brand on them. 

Mr. Lembkey. By fixing a limit of 
8J pounds on the skins to be taken. 

Mr. Elliott. How could you preserve 
any skins without having them marked? 

Mr. Lembkey. We would avoid the 
killing of them and thereby preserve 
them. If you do not kill a seal you allow 
it to live, do you not? 

Mr. Elliott. My dear sir, how do you 
know what you see hereafter? Every seal 
after it passes its third year without a 
mark on it, you kill it. 

Mr. Lembkey. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. Elliott. Every seal that passed 
from its third year, that passed from 1904, 
became a 4-year-old in 1905, did it not? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. (Hearing No. 9, 
p. 458, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.] 

Dr. Evermann: 

"Sec. 8. Sizes of Mllable seals. — No 
seals shall be killed having skin weighing 
less than 5 pounds nor more than 8| 
pounds. 

"Sec. 10. Seals for food. — The number 
of seals to be killed by the natives for food 
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, 
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of St. 
Paul and 500 on the island of St. George, 
subject to the same limitations and re- 
strictions as apply to the killing of seals by 
the company for the quota." (Hearing 
No. 10, pp. 483, 484; Apr. 20, 1912.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



173 



Dr. Evermann says he did not 
wish to renew the lease — not he; 
nor did any of his official asso- 
ciates; oh, no — 

Dr. Evermann. Now, as to re-leasing 
the islands, 1 do not understand the pur- 
pose of Mr. Elliott and certain followers of 
his in seeking to show that the advisory 
board, the Bureau of Fisheries, and their 
individual members favored re-leasing the 
islands. 

Your attention is called also to the 
recommendations of the advisory board 
dated November 23, 1909. Recommen- 
dation No. 3 says: 

"It is recommended that there be 
adopted a system of regulations similar to 
those in force on the Commander Islands, 
the Government to, assume entire control 
in all essential matters pertaining to the 
fur seals, blue foxes, natives, and the 
islands in general, and the lessee to be 
restricted to the receiving, curing, and 
shipping of the skins taken." 

This recommendation was unanimously 
agreed to by the advisory board, fur-seal 
service (Dr. David Starr Jordan, chair- 
man; Dr. Leonard Stc-jueger, Dr. Fred- 
eric A. Lucas, Mr. Edwin W. Sims, Dr. 
Charles H. Townsend), the fur-seal board 
(Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, chair- 
man; Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, and Mr. 
Millard C. Marsh), the Commissioner of 
Fisheries (Hon. George M. Bowers), the 
Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries (Dr. 
Hugh M. Smith), assistant fur-seal agent 
(H. D. Chichester), and special scientific 
expert (Mr. George A. Clark). (See p. 
814, Appendix A.) 

I desire the committee to note also that 
the elimination of the lessee was thus 
recommended long before Dr. Hornaday, 
representing the Camp Fire Club, ap- 
peared before the Senate Committee on 
Conservation and properly opposed the 
leasing svstem, which he did at the hear- 
ings of February 26 and March 22, 1910. 
This was more than a year after Dr. Jor- 
dan had expressed the "hope that the 
Government will not under any circum- 
stances lease the products of the islands, 
at least in such form as has been in vogue 
for the past 40 years." And it was more 
than three months after the Commissioner 
of Fisheries and six other members of the 
Bureau of Fisheries united with the ad- 
visory board in a recommendation that 
the leasing system be discontinued. 
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 981, 9S2, July 29, 
1912.) 



But his record shows that he 
was hard at the very job, with 
those associates in full cry with 
him, too. 

Mr. Elliott. And I want Mr. Bowers to 
pay some attention to this because this 
is important, at least some good lawyers 
have told me that it is very important to 
him — 

"Being an official letter covering a 
'memorandum' addressed to George M. 
Bowers, commissioner, urging him to take 
steps to prevent the passage of the Dixon 
fur-seal resolutions introduced in the 
United States Senate by Senator Joseph 
M. Dixon. (S. Res. 90, 91, 92.) 

"December 7, 1909. This letter from 
the 'bureau, ' dated December 16, 1909, 
and signed by Barton W. Evermann, 
urges Bowers to send agents to New York, 
there to 'educate' the Camp Fire Club 
and induce them to agree to the 'bureau's 
idea of renewing the lease,' as follows: 

Exhibit No. 6. 

Department op Commerce 
and Labor, 
Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, December 16, 1909. 
The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 
last announced that the Campfire Club, of 
New York, had inaugurated a campaign 
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla- 
tion designed to prevent the re-leasing of 
the sealing right, the cessation of all kill- 
ing on the islands for 10 years except for 
natives' food, and to secure the opening 
of negotiations with Great Britain to re- 
vise the regulations of the Paris tribunal. 
As the result of this movement, on Decem- 
ber 7 three resolutions were introduced by 
Senator Dixon, of Montana, one of which 
embodies the provisions before mentioned, 
the other two calling for the publication 
of fur-seal correspondence and reports 
since 1904. 

As the object of this movement is at 
variance with the program of this bureau 
and of the recommendations of the advis- 
ory fur-seal board, notably in the plan to 
prevent killing and the renewal of the 
seal-island lease, the advisability is sug- 
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, 
and Stanley-Brown use their influence 
with such members of the Campfire Club 
as they may be acquainted with, with the 
object of correctly informing the club as 
to the exact present status of the seal 
question and of securing its cooperation 
to effect tie adoption of the measures 
advocated by this bureau. 

The attached letter is prepared, having 
in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Evermann. 



174 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



The self-confessed sham of 
"accurate count," or "census," 
of the fur-seal herd. 



, Mr. Elliott. I call your attention to 
the census tables that you have just been 
talking about, and on page 606 this 
appears : 

•Official reports of Department of 
Commerce and Labor to Congress from 
1904, annually, made to close of season 
of 1909, declare that in 1904, 243,103 seals 
of all classes alive August 1, 1904; 1905, 
223,000 seals of all classes alive August 
1, 1905; 1906, 185,000 seals of all classes 
alive August 1, 1906." 

And so on. You bring this down to 
August 1, 1910, and in 1911 you an- 
nounced to the House Committee on 
Foreign Affairs that there were about 
133,000 seals of all classes alive. Now, 
in 1904, according to this statement, 
there were 243,103 seals of all classes alive 
August 1, 1904. Now, Mr. Chairman, I 
would like to have Dr. Evermann explain 
to your committee why in these long 
series of census tables — from 1904 to 
1911 — he has made no subtraction for 
loss by pelagic sealing, the most ' ' terrible 
destruction" which he claims was at 
work on that herd ; and why in making up 
these census tables and emitting these 
official alarm calls to Congress about this 
"terrible destruction" he neglects to 
subtract that loss from these tables. 

The Chairman. What do you mean 
by "loss"? 

Mr. Elliott. The loss entailed by 
pelagic sealing. There is not a seal 
subtracted from these tables for that; 
not a single seal that the pelagic hunter 
has destroyed since 1904. 

The Chairman. What is the object of 
your statement in this connection? 

Mr. Elliott. To show that these 
census tables are of no value; they mean 
nothing; they do not show the number of 
seals that are there. He admits it here 
tonight; that these seals are out at sea 
and wandering about in the nebulous 
North Pacific, and they have them all 



"Exhibit No. 7. Being the official letter 
of 'George M. Bowers, commissioner,' to 
Secretary Commerce and Labor, dated 
February 8, 1910, inclosing copies of three 
letters, all urging renewal of the seal lease 
and giving the reasons of the writers for 
such renewal, to wit, H. H. Taylor, presi- 
dent N. A. C. Co. (lessees), dated January 
27; 1910; C. H. Townsend, for 'fur-seal 
advisory board, ' dated January 31. 1910, 
Alfred Fraser, London agent for the N. A. 
C. Co. (lessees), January 28, 1910, as fol- 
lows." (Hearing No. 3, p. 157, {June 9, 
191L) _> 

Evermann swears that the 
"ghost dance" seals at sea always 
supply the loss on land: — Stej- 
neger, ' ' authority. ' ' 

The Chairman. If that is the case, 
let Dr. Evermann explain it. 

Dr. Evermann. The pelagic sealers 
do the deducting — — 

Mr. Elliott (interposing) . You do not; 
you keep right on. 

Dr. Evermann (continuing). And we 
count only what are left. 

The Chairman. It seems to me from 
what he read and the way Mr. Elliott 
puts the question to the witness, that he 
is under the impression that if you take 
the census, say, of 1909, in August, and 
there are found 100,000 seals, that next 
year when those seals return you should 
deduct the number that were killed by 
pelagic sealers in calculating the next 
census. Is that correct? 

Mr. Elliott. That is it ; and they have 
got to do it; if not done, then the census 
is erroneous. 

Dr. Evermann. Of course, that is 
perfectly easily understood. You will 
recall that in Dr. Stejneger's testimony 
he made the statement that his observa- 
tion and study of the question lead him 
to believe that a relatively small per- 
centage of the yearling seals are ever 
present on the islands at any one time, 
and that a large percentage of the 2-year- 
olds are not on the islands, and that even 
a percentage of the older seals- — the 3, 
4, and 5 year old seals — are not upon the 
islands all the time. Now, those numbers, 
it seems to me, that are not upon the 
islands at any time will enter into the 
catch by the pelagic sealers. But 
whether they do or not, that would not 
justify you in reporting a fewer number 
of seals upon the islands than is actually 
there. Suppose the census of 1910 
showed on the islands 100,000 seals at the 
end of the killing season and the statistics 
of the pelagic catch showed a killing 
of exactly 100,000 seals between the 
time of taking that census and the time 
that you would take the next census in 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



175 



•counted in their minds." (Hearing 
No. 14, pp. 935-937, July 25, L912.) 



Evermann swears that no man 
has ever been able to truly tell the 
seal's age, as a yearling, 2-year- 
old, etc. 

Dr. Evermann. No one knows and ao 
one ever has known the age of any seal 
on ihc seal islands, barring, of course, the 
pups of the year that have not yet left . 
When a pup is born on the islands, so 
long as it stays there you know its age 
but when it leaves in the fall and comes 
back again the ne&t season, you do not 
know absolutely whether it is the pup 
born in the preceding summer or one born 
two or three summers preceding. 

(In the hearing on H. R. 16571, House 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, January 3, 
1911', page 48.) (Hearing No. 14. p. 930, 
Jnlv 25, 1912.) 



Evermann does not know the 
age of one seal on the islands, yet 
he is able to count them all by 
ages ! 

Mr. Elliott. Again, in the hearing on 
II. B . 16571 . House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs. January 3, 1912, page 48, he says: 

"No one knows and no one ever has 
known the age of any seal on the seal is- 
lands, barring, of course, the pups of the 
year that have not, yet lefl . When a pup 
is born on the island, so long as it slays 
there you know its age, but when it leaves 
in the fall and comes back again the next 
season, you do not know absolutely 
whether it is the pup born in the preced- 
ing summer or one born two or three sum- 
mers preceding." 

II" tells you, and he told them, that he 
did not know a 3-year-old from a 1-year- 
old or a 1-year-old from a 2-year-old, and 
"that no man knows." Now, what does 
he do'? The next day before that com- 
mittee, January 4, 1912, page 129. Dr. 
Evermann says: 

"At the end of the killing season of 
1910; that is, after the 12.922 surplus male 
seals were killed, this was the census of 



1911 — then, if that were true, and if Mr. 
Elliott's contention were true, there 
should not be a single seal on the islands 
in 1911, should there? But we look and 
md if we find any there we count 
them. Hearing No. *14, pp. 935, 930, 
July 25, 1912.) 

But. the next day he returns, 
and i- able to tell the ages of 
each and every seal in the herd! 



Mr. Elliott, lie tells you. and he told 
them, that lie did not know a 3-year-old 
from a 1-year-old or a I -year-old from a 
2-year-old, and "that no man knows." 
Now, what does he do'.' The next day 
before that committee. January 4. 1912, 
page 129, Dr. Evermann says: 

"At the end of the killing season of 
1910. that is. after the 12.922 surplus male 
seals were killed, this was the census of 
the herd : Bulls, active with harem, 1 ,38 1 . 
bulls, idle and quitters. 303 (those are 
surplus bulls): half bulls. 2,336; 3-year- 
old bachelors. 1 .200; 2-year-old bachelors, 
4,500; yearling bachelors, 11.441." 

Oh, lie can count them now! 

"Male pups, 21,725." 

Oh. he counts them down to 5! 

"Yearling bachelors. 1 1 .44 1 : male pups, 
21.725; breeding cows, 43.450; 2-year-old 
cows. 12.124: yearling females, 11,441: 
female pups, 21,725, making a total of 
131,626." (Hearing No. 14. p. 930, Jury 
M2.) 

He classifies them as "green 
forms." "red forms," etc., and 
then counts these "forms" of 
various color! 

Dr. Evermann. May 1 say just a word? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Dr. Evermann. My statement on page 
Is is absolutely correct, and anyone can 
see that it is correct when you consider it 
for a moment. We know the ages of the 
pups that are born. say. this year on the 
island; we know their ages as long as they 
stay under observation, but when they 
leave in the fall and we see nothing more 
of them until the next spring it is perfectly 
evident that it is impossible for anybody 
to pick out any seal next spring and iden- 
tify it with any particular seal which was 
on the island the year before unless it has 
a distinguishing mark upon it. and these 
pups have no distinguishing mark, of 
course. You could say that all of the 
books in this room of that color [indicat- 
ing] were black and that all of some other 
color were red, and so on. That would 
answer our purposes for classification; 
yet in this case we know it is not true, be- 
cause this book is not black. And in the 



176 



FUR-SEAL HER© OF ALASKA. 



the herd: Bulls, active with harem, 1,381; 
bulls, idle and quitters, 303 (those are 
surplus bulls); half bulls, 2,336; 3-year- 
old bachelors, 1,200; 2-year-old bache- 
lors, 4,500; yearling bachelors, 11,441." 

Oh, he can count them now ! 

"Male pups, 21,725.1" 

Oh, he counts them down to 5 ! 

"Yearling bachelors, 11,441; male pups, 
21,725; breeding cows, 43,450; 2-year-old 
cows, 12,124; yearling females, 11,441; 
female pups, 21,725, making a total of 
131,626." (Hearing No. 14, pp. 930, 931, 
July 25, 1912.) 



Evermann swears that the skins 
are getting better every year un- 
der " scientific" management. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, there is some- 
thing, and since Dr. Evermann is here I 
am going to introduce it. Before the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Jan- 
uary 4, 1912, Dr. Evermann, in the 
course of his address, said (see p. 128): 

"The skins which go to them this year 
are better than those which they received 
last year [that is, 1910], and those last 
year were better than those received the 
year before [that is, 1909], and so on." 

On page 1007 of Appendix A to hearings 
before this Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of Commerce and La- 
bor is a letter from Alfred Fraser,to George 



other case we do not know the seal is a 
3-year-old seal or a 2-year-old seal; but 
the probabilities are that those seals which 
we call 3-year-old seals are 3-year-old 
seals, and the probabilities are that those 
we call 2-year-old seals are 2-year-old 
seals; but it is not a matter of knowledge; 

The Chairman. You think you are 
dealing with probabilities and not mathe- 
matical exactness? 

Dr. Evermann. We are simply hand- 
ling a series of objects which are before 
us, which can, by their sizes and appear- 
ances, be put into different classes. We 
put them into different classes, and we 
give them designated terms. We say that 
these possessing this size and this general 
appearance we will call 3-year-olds; those 
that have certain differences from the 
3-year-olds we call 2-year-olds. But Jfe 
do not know it, and Mr. Elliott does not 
know it. 

Mr. Elliott. I never assumed I did 
anything like it and never made the stu- 
pid assumption. 

Dr. Evermann. Mr. Elliott says that, 
because certain skins Aveigh certain 
weights they must have been year- 
lings 

Mr. Elliott (interposing.) I know it. 

Dr. Evermann. But he does not know 
anything about it, any more than the rest 
of us; he assumes they are yearling seals. 
It is assumed that skins which weigh less 
than 5 pounds are yearlings, and that as- 
sumption is probably correct. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know it, but 
I do. 

Dr. Evermann. I think that is all I 
care to say. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 931. 
932, July 25, 1912.) 

But, the London sales expert 
regrets to find that the skins are 
getting poorer year after year. 
New York, November 25, 1910. 

George M. Bowers, Esq., 

Commissioner Bureau of Fisheries, 
Department of Commerce and 
Labor, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: Inclosed I beg to hand you 
particulars of assortment of the Alaska fur 
seal received this day from CM. Lampson 
& Co., whose valuation of the skins based 
upon the prices realized for last year's 
catch is 12,732 skins at 144s. average per 
skin and 188 skins at 120s. ave.age per 
skin. The latter I presume are food 
skins. 



FUB-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



177 



M. Bowers, dated November 25, 1910, in 
which this language appears: 

"Dear Sir: Inclosed I beg to hand you 
particulars of assortment of the Alaska fur 
seal received this day from CM. Lamp- 
son & Co., whose valuation of the skins, 
based upon the prices realized for last 
year's catch, is 12,732 skins at 144s. aver- 
age per skin, and 188 skins at 120s. aver- 
age per skin. The latter I presume are 
food skins. 

"I regret to find that the assortment is 
not quite up to that of last year's catch." 

Now, how do you reconcile your state- 
ment to the House Committee on For- 
eign Affairs with this official notification 
that you are not telling the truth? 

Dr. Evermann. To what year does 
that refer? 

Mr. Elliott. That refers to the catch 
of the year 1910 being better than the 
year 1909. 

Dr. Evermann. My references are to 
the years 1910 and 1911. 

Mr. Elliott (interposing). You go 
back to the year 1909. 

Dr. Evermann. No. 

Mr. Elliott. You do. 

He was speaking on January 4, 1912, 
to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of 
the House, and speaking of the catch 
of 1911. He could not speak of the catch 
of 1912, for he did not know and no one 
could know about the catch at that 
time; and if he did not know how it was 
taken, how could he say they were better 
than the catch of 1911? I want him to 
answer that question . 

Dr. Evermann. We know what our 
policy is as to possible improvement of 
the catch from year to year. (Hearing 
No. 14, p. 929, July 29, 1912.) 

Evermann swears that there is 
no word from London that the 
skins are getting inferior. 



Dr. Evermann. And Dr. Hornaday, 
while admitting that some males are still 
left, claims that they are not virile. Both 
Mr. Elliott and Dr. Hornaday claim that 
virile male life has been inadequate for 
many years. 

If such has been the case, the herd 
should show evidences of physical deteri- 
oration. But those who have seen the 
herd in recent years say there is no evi- 
dence of physical deterioration; the 
individual seals are just as large and fine 
and fit at any given age as they ever were. 

Mr. Elliott. How do they know it? 
How do those natives know it? 

Dr. Evermann. There has been no 
complaint from London that the skins 
were not as fine as they ever were. (Hear- 
ing No. 10, p. 605, Apr. 20, 1912.) 



I regret to find that the assortment is 
not quite up to that of last year's catch. 

The percentages of the several grades of 
skins as compared with last year's collec- 
tion are as follows: 



Condition. 


Number. 


1910 


1909 




9,999 

1,255 

821 

621 

36 


Per ct. 

78.53 

9.86 

8.21 

4.88 

.28 


Per ct. 
83.28 


Low skins 


5.82 


Cut skins 


6.45 




3.53 


Faulty skins 


.28 








12, 732 


100 


100 



The skins count up two short of the 
number invoiced, but they will be re- 
counted on delivery. 

I regret to state that the fur trade so far 
this season is dull, owing in a great meas- 
ure to the very high cost of all articles, 
but business will no doubt improve 
should cold weather set in. 

I have reason to believe that the num- 
ber of pelagic seal taken this year will be 
about equal to that of last year. 
Yours, very truly, 

Alfred Fraser. 

Mr. Secretary: Not as satisfactory as 
I should like to have seen this statement. 
Am home and can not leave to-day. 

Geo. M. Bowers. 

November 26, 1910. 

(Appendix A, p. 1007, June 24, 1911.) 



But the word from London is 
published up to January 17, 1913, 
that the skins are inferior from 
year to year, growing more so! 

London sales: January 17, 1913. 

Philips Politzer & Co., report. 

Alaskas 3,773 skins (December, 1911, 
12,492). The quantity offered was about 
a quarter of the last sale (December, 1911) 
and with the exception of some so-called 
"food skins" no more are expected for 
five years. The present collection was 
not up to the usual standard in quality or 
appearance, in spite of which, however, 
prices remained very firm. (Fur Trade 
Review, New York, February, 1913, 
p. 66.) 



21588—13- 



-12 



178 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



E verm aim quotes Townsend 
and Lucas to prove that the 
seals just naturally trample their 
young to death. 

Dr. Evermann. I desire to incorporate 
in my statement the following from Dr. 
Charles H. Townsend, Mr. George A. 
Clark, and Dr. F. A. Lucas, three of the 
best informed men in this or any other 
country on the fur-seal question, all of 
whom were members of the Fur-Seal 
Commissions of 1896 and 1897: 

[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.] 

THE PRIBILOP PUR-SEAL HERD. 

In Science of February 2, 1912, Mr. 
McLean, of the Campfire Club's commit- 
tee on game protection, says, among other 
things, about the diminishing fur-seal 
herd, that "the best remedy is to let it 
absolutely alone. " 

Nature's methods are wasteful. 

Last November I had some correspond 
ence with a Member of the House of 
Representatives, who was taking the agi- 
tation of the Campfire Club against the 
killing of surplus male seals very seriously. 
I quote the following from a letter I wrote 
to him at that time : 

"In order to prevent annual loss of 
new-born young, we must prevent the 
flooding of the breeding grounds by big 
males. The logical way to do this is to 
market a large proportion of the 3-year 
olds, as we always have done, and thus 
prevent them from growing up into value- 
less but dangerous and destructive super- 
numeraries. 

"I take exception to the line in your 
letter 'unless the herd is further depleted 
by the Bureau of Fisheries.' The herd 
is not to be 'depleted,' as the females are 
already saved for 15 years by the cessation 
of pelagic sealing, but the polygamous 
male part of the herd must be depleted 
(to quote your word again) if you propose 
to mature all your annual crop of infant 
seals. Nature will do the depleting if 
you don' t, and half the loss will be female 
pups. 

The fact is that the innocent Camp Fire 
Club is being used by the unscrupulous 
lobby which has always been kept at 
work by the pelagic sealers. One excuse 
suits it as well as another; this time it is 
the killing of surplus males. It is a pity 
that year after year it should succeed in 
getting the support of men of good stand- 
ing who happen to be ignorant of the real 
facts involved. 

C. H. Townsend, 
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service. 

(Hearing No. 10: pp. 597-598, Apr. 25, 
1912.) 



But Evermann did not know 
that Lucas would soon be obliged 
to deny that trampled-pup fiction. 



The Chairman. About how many days? 

Dr. Lucas. About 50 days in 1896, al- 
lowing about 9 days' time spent at sea, 
going to and from one island to another. 

Mr. Elliott. In 1897 how many days 
were you on the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days. 

Mr. Elliott. On the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number. 
I have the exact data right here. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you 
see up there a pup trampled to death by 
a bull? 

Dr. Lucas. No. 

Mr. Elliott. You know there is a re- 
port of some 46 pages with your name 
associated with Dr. Jordan as one of the 
distinguished scientists who had made this 
close study of the seals that summer. 
Now, in 1897, you discovered those pups 
were not trampled to death, didn't you? 

Dr. Lucas. The greater part of them. 
Yes ; we revised our causes of the previous 
year. 

Mr. Elliott. Who revised them? 

Dr. Lucas. I did most of it, because I 
was the one on whom devolved this re- 
port on the causes of mortality. (Hearing 
No. 12, pp. 719, 720, May 16, 1912.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



179 



Evermann takes Hornaday to 
task for expression of opinion; for 
lack of experience unfits him — 



But, it soon develops that 
Evermann himself lacks experi- 
ence in the same premises. 



DR. HORNADAY S STATEMENTS REGARD- 
ING THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE PUR 

SEAL. 

Dr. Evermann: It is with extreme re- 
luctance that I venture to call attention 
to what I believe to be fundamental mis- 
takes in Dr. Hornaday's testimony before 
this committee and the Senate Committee 
on Conservation of National Resources. 
Dr. Hornaday and I are good friends, and 
have been such for many years. I fully 
appreciate the splendid work he has done 
as director of the New York Zoological 
Park and his interesting contributions to 
popular natural , history literature. I 
realize, however, that in this fur-seal 
matter he has relied chiefly upon Mr. 
Elliott for his data. Dr. Hornaday ad- 
mitted before this committee that he had 
never been on the seal islands; that he 
had never seen a fur-seal herd; that he 
had never seen a live fur seal except the 
two now at the Bureau of Fisheries and 
the one in the New York Aquarium fur- 
nished it by the United States Bureau of 
Fisheries; and. moreover, that he does not 
claim to be an expert on the life history 
of the fur seal. He even admits that he 
does "not pose as having expert informa- 
tion of that kind" and that his "interest 
in that phase of the subject is largely 
academic." Those statements are en- 
tirely frank and fair. One who has never 
been on the seal islands or who has not 
seen considerable numbers of fur seals 
can not possess any knowledge of the sub- 
ject. Knowledge is acquired only through 
personal experience; this Dr. Hornaday 
has not had. The life history of an animal 
can be studied only by observing the 
animals themselves; this Dr. Hornaday 
has had no opportunity to do. The most 
that he can have is information, and that 
will be reliable and of value only if ob- 
tained from trustworthy sources. (Hear- 
ing No. 10. pp. 601, 602, Apr. 25, 1902.) 

Evermann quotes 22 men in 
support of a self-confessed bio- 
logical untruth. 

Dr. Evermann. Here we have a list of 
more than a dozen naturalists, practically 
all of whom are men of international repu- 
tation and all of whom are known as men 
of education, intelligence, and unim- 
peachable character. Then there is an 
equal number of careful business men of 
unquestioned honesty and ability. 

These 22 men are all men of ability and 
integrity. Each and every one of them 



STATEMENT of dr. barton w. ever- 
mann, CHIEF, ALASKA FISHERIES SERV- 
ICE, BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 

Mr. Elliott. Dr. Evermann, when did 
you first go to the seal islands? 

Dr. Evermann. In the spring of 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. When did you land there? 

Dr. Evermann. I do not recall the 
exact date when I landed on either of the 
islands. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know the month? 

Dr. Evermann. It was either July or 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. Was that your first land- 
ing? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Which island did you 
land on? 

Dr. Evermann. I first landed on St. 
Paul, and later I went to St. George. 

Mr. Elliott. About what time did you 
land on St. Paul? 

Dr. Evermann. Some time in July or 
August. 

Mr. Elliott. How long did you stay 
there? 

Dr. Evermann. Only a few days. 

Mr. Elliott. What do you mean by a 
' ' few days' ' ? 

Dr. Evermann. The exact number of 
days I can not recall. 

Mr. Elliott. Was it two clays? 

Dr. Evermann. It was about a week 
or 10 days. (I have since consulted the 
record; I find I was on the Pribilof 
Islands continuously from July 19 to 
July 31.) (Hearing No. 10, p. 621, Apr. 
25, 1912.) 



Elliott exposes the deceit prac- 
tised by Evermann in asserting 
that untruth. 

The Chairman. Just make a note that 
the statement will be found in hearing 
No. 3 at page so-and-so. 

Mr. Elliott. Hearing No. 3, page 155. 
It is in connection with a "comparison of 
the proposed lease of the seal islands with 
the present lease," and under section 4 
these words occur: 

"The lease should be renewed. It is 
foolish to abolish killing on land while 



180 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



has seen the fur-seal herd, has made a 
study of the various problems involved in 
its proper management, and they are 
unanimously agreed on the following 
propositions: 

5. The surplus males should be killed 
before they reach the age of 5 years, be- 
cause when they have attained that age 
their skins become relatively of little 
value. 

6. If the surplus males are not killed 
they not only become valueless for their 
skins, but they grow up into bulls not 
needed for breeding purposes, but which 
nevertheless pass on to the rookeries, 
where they do great damage to the breed- 
ing herd by fighting among themselves 
for possession of the cows, often tearing 
the cows to pieces, so injuring them that 
many of their pups are still-born, tramp- 
ling the helpless pups to death, exhaust- 
ing their own vitality and virility, and 
rendering themselves less potent than 
they would be without such useless 
struggle — in short, causing infinite trouble 
and injury to the rookeries without a 
single compensating advantage. 

Mr. McGuire. Does that involve the 
conclusion of anyone else? Are those 
conclusions of your own based 

Dr. Evermann (interposing). No; those 
are the conclusions of these twenty-odd 
people, whose names I have read. Now, 
on the other side, against those 22, we will 
place Mr. Elliott, and Mr. Elliott alone. 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 520, 521, Apr. 24, 
1912.) 

Evermann swears a salted seal- 
skin shrinks 6 inches from its 
green length. 

Mr. McGuire. I would like a little 
more light with reference to this first skin. 
The seal, as I understand it, measured 43J 
inches. 

Dr. Evermann. Yes. 

Mr. McGuire. Those are your figures? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. Those are the official 
measurements made by the agents of the 
Government? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. The skin now, not when 
it was taken from the seal, but now, in a 
salted condition, measures 34J inches. 
Am I right about that? 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. Now, you asked Mr. 
Elliott to state from those measurements 
the age of that seal. 

Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. And he, as he stated, 
taking Lampson & Co.'s figures as a basis, 
stated that it was a yearling? 



seals are being killed in the water. Cessa- 
tion of killing on land means encourage- 
ment to pelagic sealing. Should pelagic 
or sea killing be abolished, it might be 
well to have a closed season on land as 
well as to allow the herd to recuperate." 

The Chairman. Who says this? 

Mr. Elliott. The Bureau of Fisheries, 
the advisory board, and the whole scien- 
tific aggregation — "a closed season to 
allow the herd to recuperate," whereas 
they now claim there will be "trampled 
pups" and "torn females" if they are 
allowed "to recuperate" during "a closed 
season." These men have conjured up 
that story, and it is faked. It is not 
published in any official document; no 
man, from Dr. Jordan down to the smallest 
one of his associates, has published such 
a statement in all of their official reports 
up to 1909. It is only recently, in a com- 
munication from the Bureau of Fisheries 
to the Senate, that they now say, as 
"scientists," if these animals are allowed 
to grow up there in a closed season they 
will go onto the rookeries and "fight and 
tear the females to pieces and trample the 
young to death." 

The Chairman. Well, we have had f 
that before. 

Mr. Elliott. You have never had this 
unwitting self-confession of utter insin- 
cerity before; this is the first you have 
had it, so confessed by them, brought to 
your attention. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 
970, 971, July 29, 1912.) 

But in a sworn deposition nine 
native sealers say that properly- 
salted sealskins do not shrink un- 
der the green lengths. 

St. Paul Island, Alaska, 

Town Hall, July 24, 1913. 

Question. Did you drive and kill seals 
last summer? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. How large were they? 

Answer. We killed them by ages as we 
killed them before. Mr. Lembkey was 
the Government agent and Mr. G. A. 
Clark was counting the seals. When we 
were salting skins last year, Mr. Clark did 
not allow us to stretch the skins as we 
always have done and do when spreading 
them in the trench as we salt them. We 
stretch them out about 2 or 3 inches as we 
spread them, then put salt on them, and 
then they shrink back into their natural 
shape. (Native sealers' deposition to 
Agents H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor, July 24, 1913, pp. 93-95; Rep't 
said agents, Aug. 31, 1913.) 

Mr. Lembkey. I have attempted to 
state that in measuring a green skin it is 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



181 



Dr. Evermann. Yes, sir. (Hearing 
No. 10; p. 531; Apr. 24, 1912.) 

Mr. Elliott. Then when you remove 
this skin you leave how much on it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I suppose about 3 to 3i 
inches. 

Mr. Elliott. No more? 

Mr. Lembkey. We take off as much 
skin as we can. It is my impression that 
we do not leave more than 3 inches. I 
have stated that repeatedly to the com- 
mittee. (Hearing No. 9, p. 443, Apr. 13, 
1912.) 



Evermann swears that salting 

a sealskin decreases its weight; 

he submits "proof " of it: 
t 

Dr. Evermann. Last year, when Mr. M. 
C. Marsh, naturalist, fur-seal service, went 
to the Pribilof Islands, he was instructed 
to make certain investigations, one of 
which was to determine by actual experi- 
ment the effect that salting has upon the 
weight of fur-seal skins. He made a very 
careful investigation of the matter, and 
his report has just been received. It is 
so interesting and valuable that I wish to 
put it in the record. His investigation 
settles the question conclusively and for 
all time. It shows that salting causes 
fur-seal skins to lose weight. The report 
is as follows: 

"The average loss of weight for the whole 
60 skins is 0.63 pound, or 10 ounces. This 
is an understatement of the average loss of 
weight, which, I believe, is at least an 
ounce greater. The reason is that it is 
practically impossible to mechanically re- 
move all the salt from the skins before 
reweighing. They were shaken, swept, 
and brushed, but a few grains and crystals 
of salt were always left adhering to each 
side of the skin. Obviously it would not 
do to wash them off. By more carefully 
cleaning a few of the reweighed skins and 
then again weighing them, I estimate this 
residual salt to average an ounce or some- 
thing more. 

' The careful identification of every skin 
and the care given to every detail of the 
weighing make it quite certain that the 
salting of sealskins as practiced on St. 
Paul Island subtracts materially from its 
original weight when freshly skinned. 
Presumably, though not necessarily, the 
London weights reported are less than the 
actual weights of the skins at the island 
killings. If any change takes place dur- 
ing transportation to London, it is likely 
to be a further loss, and if the London 



impossible to find out its exact length 
when you lay it on the ground, because it 
may curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can 
only be measured after it has become har- 
dened by salt. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then it will not 
stretch? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly not. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. That is the proper 
time to measure it, after it has become 
rigid and stiff? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You can not then 
stretch or shrink it? 

Mr. Lembkey. No. sir. (Hearing No. 
9, pp. 399, 400, Mar. 1, 1912.) 

Chief Special Agent Lembkey 
makes an official record of fact 
which exposes the trick of Ever- 
mann : 

Chief Special Agent Lembkey makes 
the following entry on page 149 of the jour- 
nal of the Government agent on St. Paul 
Island, to wit: 

Saturday, July 23, 1904. 
On July 18. 107 skins taken on Tolstoi 
were weighed and salted. To-day they 
were hauled out of the trench and re- 
weighed. At the time of killing they 
weighed 705 pounds, and on being taken 
out they weighed 759^ pounds, a gain in 
salting of 54£ pounds, or one-half pound 
per skin. (Report Agents H. Com. Exp. 
Dep. Com., Aug. 31, 1913, p. 112.) 



182 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



weights deal with the skin in the condi- 
tion in which it arrives, freed of most of 
the salt about which it is wrapped, a loss, 
compared with the fresh weight, almost 
without exception, will appear." (Hear- 
ing No. 14, pp. 974, 975, July 29, 1912.) 

Evermann and his "scientific" 
associates declare that the fur- 
seal breeding nuclus of 50,000 
cows will require eight years in 
which to double itself: 



Mr. Elliott. Then, with this testimony 
in his hands, Mr. W. I. Lembkey and his 
associates in the Bureau of Fisheries went 
before the House Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, January 3, 1912, and the following 
statement was then made that day to this 
committee by Mr. Lembkey, to wit (pp. 
40, 41, hearings on H. R. 16571, Jan. 3, 4, 
1912): 

"The Chairman . Assuming, Mr. Lemb- 
key, that there was a closed season on the 
Pribilof herd for a period of 10 years, what, 
in your opinion, would be the number in 
the herd at the expiration of that time? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I regret to state that 
the increase would not be as phenomenal 
as has been held out before this and other 
committees. As nearly as I can approxi- 
mate it, the increase in seal life which 
would result from an absolute cessation of 
pelagic sealing would equal 100 per cent 
every nine years. That is to say, the herd 
would double itself every nine years. I 
am willing to say eight years. We will 
say the herd will double itself every eight 
years. Now, if we should start in 1911 
with approximately 50,000 breeding fe- 
males, in 1919 we would have 100,000 
breeding females, representing an increase 
of 100 per cent within a period of eight 
years . During the next eight years, how- 
ever, the 100,000 breeding females would 
increase to 200,000, representing a net in- 
crease in the period of 16 years of 150,000 
breeding females, and, of course, the next 
eight years would see 400,000 breeding 
females in the herd. While they would 
increase at the same ratio, the numerical 
increase would be much greater as the 
herd became larger. 

"The Chairman. That applies to both 
the males and females? 



Elliott follows with table of in- 
crease, which declares that 50,000 
breeding nucleus will double itself 
in five years, and that total, 
100,000, will double itself in the 
next four years, and so on : 

Mr. Elliott. As Mr. Lembkey did not 
finish his statement in general, and was 
followed immediately by Dr. Evermann, 
I did not get in my answer to it until the 
next day's session . In due time I reached 
it, and took this particular question up as 
follows; see pages 98 to 101, inclusive, 
hearings on H. R. 16571. Now, gentle- 
men, I am going to read this to you and 
ask that you interrupt me, and where you 
think I am not clear, for here is the crux 
of the business : 

"I will now show you a table, Exhibit 
F, which will surprise you. Yesterday 
the representative of the Bureau of Fish- 
eries, and the scientists behind them, told 
you it will take eight years to double the 
50,000 females now surviving. You heard 
that statement that it would take eight 
years, and then another eight years would 
ensue before we had 200,000 cows. Why, 
the assumption was so transparently 
foolish that even the chairman, who had 
never given it a thought, at once began to 
pick it to pieces . Let me submit to you a 
statement of annual increase from a 
nucleus of 50,000 breeding female seals on 
the Pribilof rookeries, which will follow a 
complete cessation of killing male seals 
thereon, provided that that rest dates 
from February 1, 1912, or from and after 
the passage of this act, and is not broken 
until the 1st of February, 1928, being a 
close time of 15 years. This suspension of 
all such killing as above cited will enable 
the only power to operate, which is the 
natural law governing this life, and which 
alone can effect that restoration, and full 
restoration, to a safe annual rate of increase 
which will permit an annual killing indefi- 
nitely into the future of from 60,000 to 
80,000 choice surplus male seals on and 



FUB-SEAT HERD OF ALASKA. 



183 



"Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. The increase 
will be in the nature of about 100 per cent 
every eight years . ' ' 

You see, they could see through this 
crude, almost stupid , proposition that this 
herd would not double itself except once 
every eight years. (Hearing No. 14, p. 
1002, July 29, 1912.) 



after the opening of the season of 1928; 
and this killing then done without the 
slightest injury to its annual birth rate 
thereafter on the breeding grounds." 





Breeding 




Pups 


Pups 




cows. 




(males). 


(females). 


1911 


50,000 


10,000 


25,000 


25,000 


1912 


54,000 


10,000 


27,000 


27,000 


1913 


57,600 


15, 750 


28,800 


28,800 


1914 


66, 870 


24,300 


33,435 


33,435 


1915 


74,358 


26,000 


37,179 


37, 179 


1916 


88, 793 


30,092 


44,396 


44,396 


1917 


103,314 


33,462 


56, 657 


56,657 


1918 


120, 066 


42,163 


65, 033 


65, 033 


1919 


145, 997 


46,496 


77, 998 


77,998 


1920 


192,000 


57,100 


96,000 


96,000 


1921 


225, 000 


58,000 


112,000 


112,000 


1922 


260,000 


61,000 


130,000 


130,000 


1923 


321,000 


74,000 


165,000 


165, 000 


1924 


395,000 


100,000 


197,000 


197,000 


1925 


450,000 


162, 000 


275,000 


225,000 


1926 


612,000 


200,000 


306,000 


306,000 


1927 


800,000 


200,000 


400,000 


400,000 



Year. 


Yearlings 

(males 

and 

females). 


2-year- 
olds 

(males). 


3-year- 
olds 
(males). 


4-year- 
olds 
(males). 


1911... 










1912 


35,000 
37,800 
40,320 
46,808 
52, 052 
62,156 
72,983 
92,830 
104,000 
135,000 
165,000 
200,000 
231,000 
350,000 
400, 000 
450,000 








1913 


15, 750 
24,300 
26,000 
30,002 
33,462 
42, 163 
46, 496 
50,100 
58,000 
61,000 
74,000 
100,000 
162,000 
200,000 
200,000 






1914 


14, 180 
21,870 
23,600 
27,000 
30,000 
38,000 
40,000 
46,000 
52,000 
57,000 
68,000 
85,000 
140, 000 
165,000 




1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1920 
1921 
1922 
1923 

1924 

1925 
1926 
1927 


12, 762 
19,683 
21,240 
25,000 
28,000 
35,000 
36,000 
40,000 
45,000 
50,000 
57,000 
65,000 
80,000 



(Hearing No. 14, pp. 1004, 1005, July 29, 
1913.) 



184 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Evermann and his associates 
attempt a "correction" of El- 
liott's table. 

Dr. Evermann. I would state that this 
has been brought in by Mr. Elliott to show 
some point which he wished to make, and 
I wish to show how very cautious any com- 
mittee must be in accepting facts, alleged 
facts, or figures submitted to it by Mr. 
Elliott. Where he got 800,000 cows in 
1927, that method of computation will 
give only 303,371. 

Department of Commerce 

and Labor, Bureau of Fisheries, 

Washington, January 18, 1912. 
Hon. W. S. Goodwin, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Sir: Referring to the table submitted 
by Henry W. Elliott to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs at the hearing on January 
4, 1912, and printed on page 99 of the hear- 
ings, showing the prospective increase in 
the seal herd of the Pribilof Islands. I have 
the honor to advise that a critical exami- 
nation of this table shows such serious er- 
rors in computation and such« glaring dis- 
crepancies as to render the table unreli- 
able and wholly misleading. The bureau 
transmits herewith a copy of Elliott's fig- 
ures for breeding cows, nubiles, and fe- 
male pups, with the correct computations 
in parallel columns, so that the nature of 
the discrepancies can be seen at a glance. 
The corrected figures have been arrived at 
throughout by using Elliott's own basis of 
computation. Some of the errors are so 
palpable as to be readily apparent to the 
committee. The prospective number of 
breeding cows in the herd in 1927 is shown 
to be 303,371, whereas Elliott claims that 
there will then exist 800,000 breeding 
cows. 

If the committee consider it worth while 
to have a hearing on this matter, the bu- 
reau will be pleased to show in detail the 
numerous inaccuracies in Elliott's table. 

By direction of the commissioner. 
Very respectfully, 

H. M. Smith, 
Acting Commissioner. 



But Elliott again exposes the 
nonsense of that "correct" table 
of Evermann's. 

Washington, D. C, 
January 18, 1912 — 6 p. m. 
Hon. Wm. Sulzer, 

Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

Dear Sir: I have before me a letter ad- 
dressed to a member of your committee 
from Acting Fish Commissioner H. M. 
Smith, dated January 18, 1912. He in- 
forms Mr. Sharp that he has been in labor 
during the last two weeks over my table of 
increase to the small nucleus of our fur- 
seal herd, which I gave to your committee 
in his presence January 4 last. He says 
that he now finds this table of mine full of 
"serious errors," "glaring, " etc., and in- 
closes "a scientific" "correction" of it — 
"Montes parieunter, ridiculus mus." 

Mr. Smith and his "scientific" asso- 
ciates belong to that class of men who can 
see a fly on a barn door, but who can not 
see the door. Let me, therefore, present 
that problem of increase for that herd to 
you in another form, as I would have done 
January 4 last had Mr. Smith then at- 
tempted the least denial of my table given 
you then. It can be done very briefly 
and clearly, to wit: 

We start in July, this year, with 50,000 
breeding "cow" seals; during this July 
coming they will add 25,000 pup "cow- 
seals " to their breeding strength, or 50 per 
cent increase of it. But, we subtract 
from that 50 per cent of increase a loss of 30 
per cent due to natural causes during the 
interval of its birth in 1912 and its reap- 
pearance on the islands in 1913, as "year- 
ling" cow seals. Then, the loss of this 
' ' yearling " cow-seal life during the season 
of 1913, and its reappearance as a breeding 
or "nubile" life, is not to exceed 2 per 
cent, and that adds 18 per cent net in- 
crease of breeding strength by the opening 
of the season of 1914. This net annual 
increase of 18 per cent over all natural loss 
will hold good for the next 15 years, be- 
cause this is a newborn increase from 
1912 — all young cows, the oldest of them 
in 1927 not over 15 years. 

What is the sum of $50,000 at 18 per cent 
annual interest compounded for 15 years? 
Therefore, you observe, I have not misled 
you. 

I am, very respectfully, your obe- 
dient servant, 

Henry H. Elliott. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



185 



Table showing prospective increase in Pribi- 
lof seal herd from 1911 to 1927, submitted 
by Henry W. Elliott, with correct compu- 
tations in parallel columns. 



Year. 


Breeding cows. 


Elliott. ' 


Correct. 


1911 


50,000 

54,000 

57,600 

66, 870 

74,358 

88, 793 

103,314 

120,066 

145,997 

192,000 

225,000 

260,000 

321,000 

395,000 

4o0,000 

612,000 

800,000 


50,000 


1912 


54,000 


1913 


57,600 


1914 


66, 015 


1915 


74, 723 


1916 


83,580 


1917 


93,938 


1918 


105, 728 


1919 


118,852 


1920 


133,598 


1921 


150, 213 


1922 


168,887 


1923 


189, 874 


1924 


213,473 


1925 


240,005 


1926 


269, 834 


1927 


303,371 







Year. 


Nubiles. 


Elliott. 


Correct. 


1911 


10,000 

10,000 

15, 750 

24,300 

26,000 

30,092 

33,462 

42, 163 

46,496 

57,100 

58,000 

61,000 

74,000 

100, 000 

162,000 

200, 000 

200,000 


10,000 


1912 


10, 000 
15, 750 


1913 


1914 


17,010 


1915 


18, 144 


1916 


20, 795 
23,538 


1917 


1918 


26, 328 


1919 


29,590 
33,304 


1920 


1921 


37, 439 


1922 


42, 084 


1923 


47,317 


1924 


53, 199 


1925 


59, 810 
67 244 


1926 


1927 


75, 601 







Year. 


Female pups. 


Elliott. 


Correct. 


1911 


25,000 

27,000 

28, 800 

33,435 

37, 179 

44,396 

56, 657 

65, 033 

77,998 

96,000 

112,000 

130,000 

165,000 

197,000 

225,000 

306,000 

400,000 


25,000 
27,000 
28,800 
33 008 


1912 


1913 


1914 


1915 


37 362 


1916 


41,790 


1917 


46,969 
52 864 


1918 


1919 


59 426 


1920 


66, 799 


1921 


75 106 


1922 


84 443 


1923 


94,937 
106, 736 


1924 


1925 


120,002 
134,917 


1926 


1927 


151,685 







The Riggs National 
Bank of Washington, 
Washington, D. C, January 31, 1912. 
Mr. Henry W. Elliott, 

Room 423, Senate Office Building, 
Washington, D. C. 
Dear Sir: In the absence of Mr. Glover, 
who has been confined to his home by ill- 
ness for several days, I am taking the lib- 
erty of replying to your letter of the 29th 
instant, addressed to him. We have made 
the calculation indicated on the inclosed 
slip, by the use of five space logarithm ta- 
bles, and the result is $598,642,857. 
Very truly, yours, 

Henry H. Flather, 

Cashier. 

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 591, 592, Apr. 24, 
1912.) 



(Hearing No. 10, pp. 590, 591, Apr. 24, 
1912.) 



186 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Evermann misquotes authen- 
tic testimony to support idle and 
baseless statements in re loss of 
life to seal herd: 

Dr. Evermann. It is admitted by 
practically everyone that not more than 
1 in 5 of those fatally wounded is 
secured by the pelagic sealers. Mr. 
Elliott himself has stated that, in his 
judgment, not more than 1 in 10 is 
recovered. But let us use the more con- 
servative estimate. The number secured 
by the pelagic sealers in the eight years 
from 1890 to 1897 was 635,739. Accept- 
ing 1 to 5 as the proper ratio cf seals 
secured to seals killed by the pelagic 
sealers, the number mortally wounded 
and not recovered was 2,542,956; and the 
total number killed was 3,178,695 seals. 

And at least 80 per cent of these, or 
2,542,956. were females. Or, if we accept 
Mr. Elliott's ratio of number lost to num- 
ber secured, the number killed was 
6,357,390, of which 3,085,912 were 
females. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Elliott said nobody 
could fix a ratio; it is ridiculous. 

Dr. Evermann. * * * Mr. Elliott 
says that not more than 1 in 10 Is secured . 
(P. 141, Committee Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, hearing, June 8, 1888.) 

Mr. Elliott. I do not say anything of 
the kind. It is an absurd, ridiculous 
assertion repeatedly lepeated here. 

The Chairman. One minute. 

Mr. Elliott. I won't let a man sit 
there as a scientist and utter falsehoods 
here. 

Dr. Evermann. The remark 

Mr. Elliott (interposing). You can 
not find it. I said this: The idea of esti- 
mating loss at sea was a pipe dream; no 
man knew what was lost. (Hearing No. 
10, pp. -523-525, Apr. 20, 1912.) 

Evermann attempts to justify 
fraud on the seal islands to the 

committee : 

Dr. Evermann. An examination of 
Mr. Elliott's report on his work on the 
Pribilof Islands in 1890, published in 
June, 1896, shows that he kept a diary or 
journal in which he recorded his daily 
observations and field notes. This record 
appears to have been very carefully kept. 
On pages 181 and 182 I find his entry for 
July 7, 1890. You should examine this 
entry. I have read it carefully, and I 
fail to find in it any mention whatever of 
the killing of female seals. If Mr. Elliott 
discovered on that date that the agents 
were permitting the lessees to kill female 
seals, and if he had with the lessees' agent 
and the Government agent the heated 



Evermann is compelled to read 
the testimony which he had 
misquoted : 



The Chairman. Where was the testi- 
mony adduced? 

Dr. Evermann. June 8, 1888, Commit- 
tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 
page 140. (Reading): 

"Shooting fur seals in the open waters 
of the sea or ocean with the peculiar shot 
and bullet cartridges used involves an 
immense waste of seal life. Every seal 
that is merely wounded, and even if 
mortally wounded , at the moment of shoot- 
ing dives and swims away instantly, to 
perish at some point far distant and to be 
never again seen by its human enemies; 
it is ultimately destroyed, but it is lost, 
in so far as the hunters are concerned . If 
the seal is shot dead instantly, killed in- 
stantly, then it can be picked up in most 
every case; but not 1 seal in 10 fired at 
by the most skillful marine hunters is so 
shot, and nearly every seal in this 10 will 
have been wounded, many of them 
fatally. The irregular tumbling of the 
water around the seal and the irregular 
heaving of the hunter's boat, both acting 
at the same moment entirely independent 
of each other, make the difficulty of tak- 
ing an accurate aim exceedingly great and 
the result of clean killing very slender." 
(Pp. 140-141.) 

Mr. Elliott. Is it there where you say 
I say 10, and only 1 recovered? 

Dr. Evermann. I read the testimony. 

Mr. Elliott. But you know I do not 
say that. 

Dr. Evermann. The committee will 
pass upon that. 

Mr. Elliott. Very well; I am satisfied. 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 527-529, Apr. 20, 
1912.) 

But, the fraud is at once ex- 
posed to the committee: 

Mr. Elliott. In the first place, all 
those affidavits he has cited must have 
been made after the 14th of August, 1890. 
They were made by the employees of the 
North American Commercial Co. under 
pressure from George R. Tingle, who also 
signed one of them; they were supple- 
mented by a letter to Secretary Charles 
Foster, from Capt. Michael Healey, United 
States Revenue Marine Service, who 
touched at the islands in October, 1890, 
and who wrote to Foster about the ' 'seals 
being as numerous then as they had ever 
appeared to him in all previous years." 
(Think of such a statement from such a 
man, who knew so little!) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



187 



controversy to which he refers in his letter 
to Mr. Windom, does it not look strange 
that he makes no mention whatever of the 
matter in his diary? It seems almost in- 
conceivable that so important a matter as 
the unlawful killing of female seals should 
not have been recorded at the time. 

Mr. Elliott. It is recorded in the 
Treasury Department. 

Dr. Evermann. Not until two months 
later does he put the matter on record. 
He has explained why he did not embody 
this information in his final report to Mr. 
Windom, but that does not explain why 
it is not even hinted at in his ' 'Daily field 
notes," which, he states, are given in 
extenso in Section VIII of his 1890 report. 

In his letter to Secretary Windom he 
claims that he discovered that three fe- 
males had been killed and straightway 
ordered all killing stopped. Because 
three seals had been killed illegally he 
stopped all killing. Is that what an 
an efficient and fair-minded agent would 
have done? No; not at all. On the con- 
trary, an intelligent agent, competent to 
cope with the situation, would have 
stopped the killing of females, if such 
were being killed, but would have con- 
tinued the proper killing of males, just 
the same. No one except Mr. Elliott has 
claimed there was not an abundance of 
killable males. Indeed, Daniel Webster, 
who was in immediate charge of the kill- 
ings on the islands for more than 20 years, 
and the chief, Anton Melovidov, have 
both stated under oath that 60,000 good 
merchantable skins could have been taken 
in 1890 without any injury to the herd. 
These respective statements follow. 

Here is a copy of the sworn statement 
made by Daniel Webster. It touches 
upon several matters. They are all more 
or less pertinent, but I will not read them 
all. (Hearing No. 10, p. 489, Apr. 19, 
1912.) 



Those ' 'affidavits' ' were simply bogus — 
they were false ab initio. They were re- 
ceived by Mr. Foster on April 3, 1891, in 
this Mills letter aforesaid, and then what 
happened? 

On or about the 5th of April Mr. Charles 
J. Goff was called into Secretary Charles 
Foster's office and told that he need not 
concern himself with the seal-island busi- 
ness any further ; that ' ' the department 
had other business for him to transact at 
Montreal," Canada (i. e., looking after 
immigration cases). Goff was directed to 
proceed there forthwith (and he did). 
No complaint againt him was uttered by 
Foster — just called him in, and sent him 
to Montreal in the ' 'regular order of 
official business' ' which governs all the 
special agents. Goff was astonished; he 
was speechless, but obeyed. 

Now, gentlemen, what happened? We 
come right back to this letter of Ogden 
Mills. A new administration took charge 
March 4, 1895. I determined to get 
copies of those ' 'affidavits' ' which Charles 
Foster published a mention of in the New 
York Tribune, May (9?), 1891, as his 
authority for that suppression of my re- 
port of 1890, and those of my official asso- 
ciates, Messrs. Goff, Murray, Nettleton, 
and Lavender. 

I called on Secretary John G. Carlisle 
of the Treasury. He evinced the live- 
liest interest in this question and asked 
Assistant Secretary Charles S. Hamlin to 
go with me to the chief supervising special 
agent's office and furnish me with copies 
of those affidavits, Capt. Healey's letter, 
etc. 

Did we find those affidavits or the 
Healey letter? No. We traced them out 
from the Ogden Mills letter receipt in 
..April, 1891, to one division after another, 
only to find that they had been received, 
had been noted, and had disappeared 
from the files when Charles Foster left the 
Secretary's office, March 4, 1895. 

Why were those "affidavits" and that 
letter of Healey removed and taken from 
the official files when Charles Foster pub- 
lished notes of them as his official warrant 
for suppressing the sworn official reports 
of Charles J. Goff and his three assistants 
in charge of the seal islands for 1890, and 
my special report of 1890 to Mr. Windom, 
ordered by act approved April 5, 1890? 

Why? Because their authors had per- 
jured themselves, and if those ' 'affidavits" 
had been in the hands of John G. Carlisle 
the lessees would have been obliged, in 
my opinion, by Mr. Carlisle to surrender 
their lease. That is why they were ab- 
stracted by or with the full knowledge 
and consent of Charles Foster, Secretary 
of the Treasury, on or some time before 
March 4, 1895. Nobody else could have 



188 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Evermann prompting Bowers 
to deny the regulation prohibit- 
ing the killing of yearlings: 

Mr. McGuire. The only point of dif- 
ference, apparently, between yourself 
and Dr. Elliott is on the question of the 
age of the seals at the killing. I believe 
you said your instructions to your agents 
are that under no circumstances are seals 
to be killed under 2 years of age? 

Mr. Bowers. There is no instruction 
to that effect this year; there was none 
last year to that effect; and I am not 
aware that it has been modified in any 
way; but there is an understanding, and 
there is a statement from the agent to the 
effect that no seals were taken under 2 
years of age. Of course, you understand 
we are operating under this law which was 
passed a year ago, and there is no pro- 
vision in that giving instructions to the 
agents on the islands. 

Mr. McGuire. I understand that the 
regulations of 1904, with respect to the 
ages, have not been modified by this law; 
am I right or not? 

Mr. Bowers. Well, I am not suffici- 
ently versed in the regulations of 1904, 
and I can not recall from memory. 

Mr. McGuire. Well, as read a few mo- 
ments ago, the statement was that none 
were to be killed under 2 years of age, and 
then you subsequently stated none had 
been killed to your knowledge under 2 
years of age. 

Mr. Bowers. As understood from the 
reports submitted to us by agents on the 
islands, and we adjudged that, to some 
extent, too, by the weight of the skins. 

Mr. McGuire. Do you know now, of 
your own knowledge, whether the regu- 
lations of 1904, with respect to the ages 
of the seals at the time of killing, have 
been modified? 

Mr. Bowers. Well, I am not familiar 
with those regulations. 

Dr. Evermann. New regulations are 
issued every year. 

Mr. Bowers. I can not recall the regu- 
lations of 1904, because I can not recall 
having read the. They were not under 



removed them or would have dared to do 
so, as I was told by the Treasury officials. 
Those men whose names were signed 
to these bogus ' 'affidavits' ' as inclosed in 
that ' 'Ogden Mills' ' letter above cited are 
all dead save one. That survivor of this 
job is one James C. Redpath. He has 
been the general overseer and assistant 
general manager of the lessees ever since 
May 21, 1890, up to the hour that their 
lease expired, May 1, 1910. (Hearing 
No. 10, pp. 663, 665, Apr. 24, 1912.) 

Secretary Nagel brings Lemb- 
key and Evermann to swear 
February 4, 1911, that no seals 
were killed under 2 years of age: 

Mr. Elliott. We want that distinctly 
understood. We want to find out where 
he comes in, and where to put the respon- 
sibility. Is not Mr. Lembkey responsible 
for anything? Did he not get his orders 
from you? 

Mr. Bowers. He gets his orders from 
me as approved by the Secretary. 

Mr. Elliott. And he is bound by 
them? 

Mr. Bowers. He is. 

Mr. Elliott. Then, Mr. Chairman, I 
want Mr. Bowers to explain right here 
why Mr. Lembkey, introduced by Secre- 
tary Nagel, said on February 4 last, at a 
hearing of the conservation committee 
of the United States, on page 10, in answer 
to this question: 

"The Chairman. How many did you 
kill last year? 

"Mr. Lembkey. We killed 12,920. 

"Q. What was the youngest seal you 
killed; what age? 

"A. Two years old." 

There we have the official statement of 
the Department of Commerce and Labor, 
without doubt or equivocation, without 
any question of law or anything, given to 
the Senate committee, that they had 
killed none of those seals, 12,920, under 
2 years of age. Are you ready to certify 
to that statement here before this com- 
mittee? 

Mr. Bowers. That is Mr. Lembkey's 
statement. 

Mr. Elliott. No; but, my dear sir, he 
is your agent. I want you to certify to it. 

Mr. Bowers. I am not evading any- 
thing; I want that distinctly understood. 

Mr. Elliott. Then you certify to that 
statement? 

Mr. Bowers. I do not have to certify 
to any statement made by another man. 
That is his statement. That is the state- 
ment as it comes to the Bureau of Fish- 
eries from the officials. That is an official 
record as it comes to me. (Hearings No. 2, 
p. 117, June 9, 1911.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



189 



my supervision in those days. The regu- 
lations of 1910 do not make a restriction 
of that character. (Hearing No. 2, p. 106, 
June 9, 1911.) 



" Scientists " Bowers and Ever- 
mann deny the good results of 
the modus vivendi of 1891-1893: 

Mr. Elliott. Now, on page 137, right 
under this, following right there, Mr. 
McGillicuddy asks Mr. Bowers this ques- 
tion: 

"Mr. McGillicuddy. Do you think it 
would be well to have a closed time? 

"Mr. Bowers. Not on land. There 
was a closed time from 1891, I believe, 
until 1894. The modus vivendi was put 
in operation then. That modus vivendi 
did more to exterminate the seals than-any 
previous order issued or given for the five 
years prior to 1890." 

Did you inspire or aid him in making 
that declaration, Dr. Evermann? 

Dr. Evermann. No, sir. 

Mr. Elliott. Haven't you made a simi- 
lar declaration? 

Dr. Evermann. I have made a state- 
ment regarding the modus vivendi. 

Mr. Elliott. As being the most destruc- 
tive thing possible, didn't you? 

Dr. Evermann. In the essential fea- 
tures of that statement I agree fully with 
Commissioner Bowers, and as to the evil 
results of the modus vivendi, yes. (Hear- 
ing No. 10, pp. 633, 634, Apr. 20, 1912.) 



Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, in 1904 the 
Hitchcock rules were first published, I 
believe. Have thev been changed since 
then? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes; they have. 

Mr. Elliott. As to killing any seal un- 
der 2 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not so far as to killing 
any seal under 2 years of age, but in 1906 
they were changed so as to make the mini- 
mum weight 5 instead of 5$ pounds. 
(Hearing No. 9, p. 449, Apr. 13", 1912.) 

But their associate Townsend, 
"sealing expert," does not deny 
those good results." 

Mr. Elliott. Is Mr. Charles H. Town- 
send a reliable witness as to the modus 
vivendi? 

Dr. Evermann. Mr. Townsend is a 
very reliable man; yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Allow me to read what 
Mr. Charles H. Townsend says of this mo- 
dus vivendi in his report to United States 
Fish Commissioner MacDonald, Febru- 
ary 26, 1894: 

"It is undoubtedly true, however, that 
the closing of Bering Sea to sealing vessels 
during the period of the modus vivendi 
has had a most salutary effect, and that 
the rookeries of the Pribilof Islands in 
their present condition are so nearly sta- 
tionary as regards the number of seals 
since this regulation came into effect is 
distinctly traceable to the protection so 
afforded." 

That is found on page 7, Senate Docu- 
ment 137, Fifty-fourth Congress, first ses- 
sion. 

Mr. McGuire. Is this the honorable 
Charles H. Townsend? 

Mr. Elliott. No; he is an associate of 
Dr. Evermann in the Fur Seal Bureau. 
He is one of those scientists brought in as 
an authority for all the Bureau o* Fisheries 
is doing. Now I want to ask Dr. Ever- 
mann how he reconciles his sweeping de- 
nunciation of the modus vivendi of 1891- 
1893 with this statement of Mr. Town- 
send? 

Dr. Evermann. When the committee 
calls Dr. ToAvnsend, as I believe the com- 
mittee has arranged to do, Dr. Townsend 
can &ive his own explanation of his own 
reports and statements. 

Mr. Elliott. And you do not have any 
thing to take back? You are willing to 
stand by your denunciation? 

Dr. Evermann. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Townsend was up 
there and knew what he was talking 
about, didn't he? 

Dr. Evermann. I am not offering any 
apology for Mr. Townsend 's testimony. 

Mr. Elliott. He had personal knowl- 
edge, and you had not, didn't he? 



190 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Evermann tells the committee 
of his qualification by experience 
and study on the seal islands: 



Dr. Evermann. One of the interesting 
phases of this question that has attracted 
my attention is the attitude which some 
persons have assumed toward the large 
numbers of able and distinguished natu- 
ralists who have visited the seal islands 
and who are without question the me.i 
most familiar with the fur-seal herd and 
the many problems connected with its 
management and effective conservation. 

Within the last 25 years nearly a score 
of the most distinguished naturalists, not 
only of this country but of Great Britain, 
Canada, and Japan, have visited our seal 
islands for the specific purpose of study- 
ing the habits of the fur seals and the 
problems connected with the proper man- 
agement of the herd. Among these gen- 
tlemen I may mention the following: 

Dr. Evermann (reading): 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, in 
charge of the Alaska fisheries service, 
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in 
1892, spent six months on our seal islands 
in the north Pacific and on the Russian 
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook- 
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations." 

The Chairman. You take most of this 
information you get from records and 
documents, do you not, Doctor? 

Dr. Evermann. I have been in the 
islands myself. 

The Chairman. Or from actual per- 
sonal observations? 

Dr. Evermann. I have been in the 
seal islands myself once. 

The Chairman. When was that? 

Dr. Evermann. In 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. How long were you there? 

Dr. Evermann. I spent six months on 
a fur-seal investigation in 1892. 

Mr. Elliott. How long were you on 
the islands? 

Dr. Evermann. Only a very few days. 

Mr. Elliott. That is what I thought. 
(Hearing No. 10, pp. 518-519, Apr. 20, 
1912.) 



Dr. Evermann. He had knowledge of 
conditions on the islands in that year 
which I did not possess, because I was 
not on the islands in that year. (Hearing 
No. 10, p. 634, Apr. 20, 1912.) 

Proof found of the "value" of 
his experience and study while 
"six months on our seal islands" 
("studying"): 

JOURNAL of the office of the united 
states treasury agent in charge of 
st. Paul's island, Alaska. 

Friday, July 22, 1892. 

Messrs. Evermann and Miller visited 
Northeast Point. Prof. Evermann re- 
ports the finding of four cow seals dead at 
Northeast Point.' 

Monday, July 25, 1892. 

The watchman at Northeast Point, 
Martin Nedaragoff, reports that the cow 
seals reported dead by Prof. Evermann 
were not fur seals at all, but four sea lion 
pups. 

Agent Brown and Dr. Voss and Messrs. 
Macoun and Maynard will go to Northeast 
Point and make a thorough investigation 
of the matter. 

Messrs. Brown and Chichester, accom- 
panied by Dr. Voss, went to Northeast 
Point and made a thorough investigation 
of the dead seal cow question, and they 
found that they were sea lion pups, and 
that Prof. Evermann was mistaken, and 
that the native watchman was right in 
every particular. 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



191 



Evermann, Bowers, and Smith 
put out this story showing their 
opposition to the Hay-Elliott 
treaty : 

[Boston Transcript, Oct. 30, 1909.] 

The "Seal Monopoly" — A Complete 
Explanation of the Arrangement. 

Exclusive rights on the Pribilof Islands 
again to be granted to the North Ameri- 
can Commercial Co. — The monopoly is 
only American; it does not cover the 
entire business — There is, however, 
much criticism, and many charges of 
abuses are made; but the Government 
is satisfied with the system — Some pro- 
visions of the contract — The Hay- 
Elliott plan for a remedy of conditions. 

prof. Elliott's remedy. 

Washington, October 28. 
Newspaper offices have been invaded 
more or less of late by communications 
from Prof. Henry W. Elliott, of Ohio, for- 
merly a well-known figure in Washington, 
sharply criticizing the apparent inaction 
of the United States Government in reach- 
ing an international agreement for the pro- 
tection of the seal industry. Prof. Elliott 
is fond of harking back to an agreement 
which he, in cooperation with Secretary 
of State John Hay, was about to conclude 
with Sir Mortimer Durand, the British 
ambassador, when the negotiations were 
terminated by the retirement of Mr. Hay, 
whose death followed soon after. The 
Hay-Elliott agreement, as it has been 
styled, would have settled the whole fur- 
seal question, in the opinion of Prof. El- 
liott; but according to the view of Gov- 
ernment officials who are supposed to 
know most about the sealing question, it 
would still have left the main question 
not only unsettled, but in a worse situa- 
tion than before. This agreement, which 
bears date of March 7, 1905, provided: 

(1) That all killing of fur seals on the 
Pribilof Islands and in the waters of Be- 
ring Sea and the North Pacific should be 
entirely suspended and prohibited to 
American citizens and British subjects 
for a period of 12 or more years from its 
date. 

(2) That when, after this period of rest 
has lapsed, killing may be resumed on 
these islands only, and only of a safe num- 
ber of surplus male seals annually found 
there, no killing at sea of any kind what- 
ever to be resumed ; this killing to be done 
by the American resident agents on the 
islands, jointly under the supervision of 
Canadian resident agents. 

(3) That for this complete suspension 
of the rights of British subjects to kill 



Evermann then attempts to 
deny this record as published by 
him in the Boston Transcript, 
October 30, 1909: 

The Chairman. You thought it was a 
good thing to bring about this treaty, did 
you not? 

Dr. Evermann. Undoubtedly. Mr. 
Chairman. And I may say that the other 
members of the Bureau of Fisheries and 
myself contributed everything within 
our power to bring about the signing of the 
treaty. 

The Chairman. Do you not think it 
would have been a good thing if this treaty 
had been entered into when Hay was Sec- 
retary of State? 

Dr. Evermann. A treaty of this kind 
ought to have been negotiated in the 
eighties, undoubtedly; the earlier the 
better; but even late is better than never 
at all. But it seemed to have never been 
handled effectively until last year. 
(Hearing No. 14, pp. 991, 992, July 29, 
1912.) 

A CURIOUS "EXPLANATION " 

Stung into some semblance of activity 
by recent exposures of lamentable condi- 
tions in the seal fisheries of the Bering 
Sea, the Department of Commerce and 
Labor at Washington has at last been 
moved to offer a detailed defense of its 
attitude of neglect. The Washington cor- 
respondent of the Boston Transcript, in a 
two-column review of sealing conditions 
as they appear to Secretary Nagel's de- 
partment, performs a public service by 
uncovering the official mind upon this im- 
portant question. 

The Transcript man, claiming to ad- 
vance no opinions of his own, gives a fairly 
complete picture of the governmental atti- 
tude upon the seal-fisheries question. He 
reflects the department's "reasons" for 
opposing a settlement of the long contro- 
versy in accordance with the Hay-Elliott 
plan, which was in favor both at Washing- 
ton and Ottawa when Mr. Hay was Secre- 
tary of State, and is still favored at the 
Canadian capital. This plan of agree- 
ment contemplated a treaty between the 
United States and Great Britain (Canada) 
first and then a similarly binding agree- 
ment with Russia and Japan, the nations 
next in interest. The Government's ex- 
cuse for not pressing a settlement upon 
this plan, as it could have been done at 
any time since the death of John Hay, ia 
thus told through the Transcript corre- 
spondent : 

"Even though Japan and willing Russia 
join with Great Britain and the United 
States in an international agreement, 
nothing would exist to hinder France or 



192 



PUB-SEAL HEBD OP ALASKA. 



seals on the high seas, Canada will bear 
one-fourth of the expense of maintenance 
of the natives of the seal islands, annually, 
and cost of care and conservation of the 
fur-seal herd; and Canada will receive 
one-fourth of the gross proceeds of the sale 
of skins annually taken on these islands. 
Prof. Elliott appends his opinion that 
when the Alaska fur-seal herd is fully re- 
stored, from 75,000 to 80,000 young male 
seals can safely be taken every season 
without injury to the regular birth rate 
of the herd. 

However much impression the Hay- 
Elliott agreement may have made upon 
the authorities at the time, it has failed 
to command the esteem of the officials of 
the State Department and the Bureau of 
Fisheries since. They point out that its 
great inherent weakness is that appar- 
ently it comprehends only Canada and 
the United States as necessary factors 
in an international sealing agreement, 
whereas not only is Japan the chief ag- 
gressor, but she and every other country 
in the world would still enjoy the right 
to kill seals in the open sea, without the 
competition which the United States now 
supplies on the Pribilof Islands. Even 
should Japan and willing Russia join with 
Great Britain and the United States in an 
international agreement, nothing would 
exist to hinder France or any other 
country from pelagic sealing, hence the 
only effect of such an agreement might be 
to turn the fur-seal fisheries of the world 
over to countries which now do not par- 
ticipate in them. It is obvious, therefore, 
that to be effective an international agree- 
ment must include pretty much all the 
civilized nations of the earth. In view of 
this apparently self-evident truth, the 
Elliott solution of the problem is re- 
garded in Washington as a very ineffec- 
tive affair. The point can be made also, 
that the Senate probably would be slow 
to ratify any treaty that contemplated the 
payment of a royalty to a foreign Govern- 
ment upon products which are clearly the 
Sroperty of the United States. (Hearing 
\o. 3, pp. 151, 152, July 6, 1911.) 

Evermann introduces the agent 
of the seal lessees to the com- 
mittee as another person. 

NATURALISTS WHO HAVE STUDIED THE 
PUR SEAL FAVOR KILLING OP SURPLUS 
MALES. 

Dr. Evermann. One of the interesting 
phases of this question that has attracted 
my attention is the attitude which some 
persons have assumed toward the large 
numbers of able and distinguished natu- 
ralists who have visited the seal islands 
and who are without question the men 
most familiar with the fur-seal herd and 



any other country from pelagic sealing; 
hence the only effect of such an agree- 
ment might be to turn the fur-seal fisher- 
ies of the world over to countries which 
now do not participate in them. It is 
obvious, therefore, that to be effective an 
international agreement must include 
pretty much all the civilized nations of 
the earth." 

The explanation is weak and prepos- 
terous. Take France, for instance, as a 
possible pelagic sealer. What ports could 
she, engaged in contraband trade, use as 
bases of supplies? Where would she land 
her skins? The nearest French port is 
perhaps 10,000 miles away as ships must 
sail. Her furs would spoil, her sailors and 
fishermen starve, her vessels, tossed and 
wrecked in that stormy sea, could not be 
repaired. And as with France, so with 
any other nation outside the circle of the 
proposed agreement. 

The United States, Great Britain, Rus- 
sia, and Japan control the situation by 
geographical conditions. There is every 
reason to believe that the three would 
join with the Government at Washington 
to stop the wanton destruction of a great 
natural resource if the State Department 
would but take the initiative. 

Meanwhile the old question remains 
unanswered: Why does the United States 
refuse to act? This "explanation " of the 
Transcript correspondent is notable for its 
utter failure to explain. (Plain Dealer, 
Cleveland, Ohio, Nov. 8, 1909.) 



The reason why Jos. Stanley- 
Brown is so highly regarded by 
the Bureau of Fisheries. 

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AGENT IN 
CHARGE OF ST. PAULS ISLAND, ALASKA. 

Thursday, June 9, 1892. 

Mr. J. Stanley-Brown arrived and took 

the place of Maj. Williams as United 

States agent in charge of the seal islands. 

Friday, July 8, 1892. 

The entire control and management of 

the killing grounds and the killing of the 

were given to Mr. Fowler, of the 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



193 



the many problems connected with its 
management and effective conservation. 

Within the last 25 years nearly a score 
of the most distinguished naturalists, not 
only of this country, but of Great Britain, 
Canada, and Japan, have visited our seal 
islands for the specific purpose of study- 
ing the habits of the fur seals and the 
problems connected with the proper 
management of the herd. Among these 
gentlemen I may mention the following 
(reading): 

"Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, in 
charge of the Alaska fisheries service. 
who, as special fur-seal commissioner in 
1892, spent six months on our seal islands 
in the North Pacific and on the Russian 
seal islands, studying the fur-seal rook- 
eries, hauling grounds, and migrations. 

"Mr. Joseph Stanley-Brown, of New 
York, spent the seasons of 1891, 1898, 
1894, 1895. 1896, 1897, and 1899 on the 
seal islands, where, as naturalist and 
keen business man, he made very thor- 
ough study and investigations not only 
of the habits of the seals but very valua- 
ble study of the economic questions 
involved." 

Evermann attempts to misstate 
the Russian record of killing: 



Dr. Evermann. They took a great 
number of these seals during the closed 
season from 1835 to 1846? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; "gray pups," all 
males, in November, annually, and it 
didn't destroy them either. It would be 
a good thing to follow that to-day. 

Dr. Evermann. On page 65. line 1, you 
say: 

"Way back as far as 1826 the Russians 
themselves recognized the fact that they 
were culling the herds too closely — that 
they were ruining the business by the 
land killing of all the choice males; they 
knew that they alone on the islands were 
to blame, because no such thing as hunt- 
ing fur seals in the water by white men 
then was dreamed of, much less done." 

Do you seriously claim that it was the 
killing of males that reduced the herd? 

Mr. Elliott. I claim that the Russian 
agents so reported. 

Dr. Evermann. Do you claim it did? 

Mr. Elliott. Certainly I do. 

Dr. Evermann. Do you not know that 
up to at least 1835 female seals were reg- 
ularly killed by the Russians? 

Mr. Elliott. No. I know you injected 
it into a report of another committee of 
this House, and the chairman of the com- 
mittee apologized for the misinformation 
he got from you. I'm glad you asked me 
that question. (Hearing No. 10, p. 616, 
April 24. 1912. House Committee on Ex- 



North American Commercial Co., by 

order of Mr. J. Stanley-Brown, and Assist- 
ant Agent Murray was ordered to count 
the seals. 

Wednesday, June 6, 1894- 
Steamer Lakme. of the North American 
Commercial Co. arrived, having on 
board * * * Mr. Brown, superin- 
tendent of the North American Commer- 
cial Co. 



Elliott submits to the commit- 
tee the facts in re method of Rus- 
sian killing: 

Mr. Elliott. Way back as far as 1826 
the Russians themselves recognized the 
fact that they were culling the herds too 
closely — that they were ruining the busi- 
by the land killing of all the choice males; 
they knew that they alone on the 
islands were to blame, because no such 
thing as hunting fur seals in the water by 
white men then was dreamed of, much 
less done. 

In December, 1820, Gen. Tanovsky, 
the imperial Russian agent, sent over to 
Sitka from St. Petersburg in 1818, to exam- 
ine into the question of that decline of the 
fur-seal catch, then wrote to his Govern- 
ment that "so severe is this practice of" 
culling the best males for slaughter, " that 
if any of the young breeders are not killed 
by autumn, they were sure to be killed' 
by the following spring," and urged the' 
reformation of this work then on the' 
islands. 

Here is this evil of overdriving and cull- 
ing the herd presented and defined 50' 
years before I saw it, and nearly 70 years- 
before Jordan denies its existence in 1898. 
Think of it — we have sent two investigat- 
ing commissions since 1890 up to our 
ruined fur-seal preserves on the Pribilof 
Islands, one in 1891 and the other in~ 
1896-7, and yet, in spite of this plain Rus- 
sian record and my detailed and unan- 
swerable indictment of that particular- 
abuse in 1890. these commissioner^ 



21588—13- 



-13 



194 FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 

penditures in the Department of Com- blindly and stupidly deny it. They at- 
merceand Labor.) tempt to set aside the Russian record by 

saying that the Russians then killed fe- 
males as well as males and drove them up 
to the shambles in equal numbers. 

The Russians did nothing of the sort. 
They began the season early in June by 
driving from the hauling grounds pre- 
cisely as we do to-day and continued so to 
drive all through the rest of the season; 
they never went upon the rookeries and 
drove off the females; they never have 
done so since 1799. How, then, did the 
females get into their drives? 

The females fell into these drives of the 
Russians because that work was pro- 
tracted through the whole season — from 
June 1 to December ] . In this way the 
drivers picked up many cows 'after 
August 1 to 10, to the end of November 
following, since some of these animals 
during that period leave their places on 
the breeding grounds and scatter out over 
large sections of the adjacent hauling 
grounds, so as to get mixed in here and 
there with the young males. Thus the 
Russians in driving across the flanks of the 
breeding grounds, going from the hauling 
grounds, during every August, Septem- 
ber, October, and November, would 
sweep up into their drives a certain 
proportion of female seals which are then 
scattered out from the rookery organiza- 
tion and are ranging at will over chose 
sections of the hauling grounds driven 
from. What that proportion of this fe- 
male life so driven was, in Russian time, 
no man to-day can precisely determine. 
From the best analysis I can make of it 
I should say that the Russian female 
catch in their drives never exceeded 30 
per cent of the total number driven at any 
time, and such times were rare, and that 
it ranged as low as 5 per cent of female life 
up to the end of August annuallv. (Hear- 
ing No. 2, p. 65, June 8, 1911, House Com- 
mittee on Expenditures in the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor.) 

IV. 

The sworn statements of Dr. Charles H. Townsend, who is one of the experts cited to the 
United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 
1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and 
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for killing seals in 
violation of the law and regulations. 

Mr. Bowers. The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following: 

Dr. Charles H. Townsend, director of the New York Aquarium, for many years 
naturalist on the fisheries steamer Albatross, member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 
1896 and 1897, and distinguished as a naturalist and field investigator. Dr. Town- 
send made a special study extending over many years of our fur seals and pelagic 
sealing. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



195 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



All killing of fur seals on Pribi- 
lof Islands is ordered under rec- 
ommendation of advisory board, 
of which Townsend is a member: 

Mr. Bowers. I have referred, in my re- 
port of June 30, 1909, to the Alaskan fur- 
seal service as follows: 

"On the establishment of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, in 1903, the 
Alaskan fur-seal service was transferred 
thereto from the Department of the Treas- 
ury, to which it had been attached for 
many years. In the Department of Com- 
merce and Labor this service formed a 
distinct branch and was administered 
through the Secretary's office until De- 
cember 28, 1908, when it was transferred 
to the Bursau of Fisheries. The Commis- 
sioner of Fisheries has appointed a special 
board, composed of five members of the 
bureau's staff who have personal knowl- 
edge of the Alaskan fur seals, and to this 
board will be assigned for consideration 
and recommendation all matters pertain- 
ing to the seal life on the Pribilof Islands, 
the blue foxes, and other animal resources 
on the islands, and the Government's rela- 
tions to the natives and the lessees. On 
January 13, 1909, the Secretary, on the 
recommendation of the commissioner, ap- 
pointed an advisory board for th 3 fur-seal 
service, consisting of Dr. David Starr 
Jordan, Dr. Leonard Stejneger, Dr. C. 
Hart Merriam, Mr. Frederic A. Lucas, 
Hon. Edwin W. Sims, Hon. Frank H. 
Hitchcock, and Mr. Charles H. Townsend. 
The Government is thus enabled to avail 
itself of the expert knowledge possessed 
by these naturalists and officials, who, 
through visits to the seal islands and 
through previous duty on fur-seal com- 
missions or in the administration of the 
fur-seal service, are familiar with the 
problems involved in the management of 
the seal herd and the seal islands." 

Mr. Patton. These recommendations 
were made to your bureau? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes. 

Mr. Patton. And were not made by 
you at all? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir. 

Mr. Patton. But were made by this 
advisory board? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:] 

"It is recommended that, for the pres- 
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 8^ 
pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be 
taken, and thac not more than 95 per cent 
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in 
any one vear." (Hearing No. 2, p. Ill, 
June 9, 1911.) 



Townsend swears that he does 
not know how the killing has been 
done on the islands; does not 
know what a yearling seal skin is. 

The Chairman. What can you tell us 
about the killing of seals? 

Dr. Townsend. I hardly know what 
the methods are afc the present time. 1 
have not been there since 1900. I coidd 
only discuss that subject now in a general 
way, if that would be satisfactory. 

The Chairman. You have not been 
there since 1900? 

Dr. Townsend. Not since 1900. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Are you familiar 
with the means and modes of skinning 
seals as they do up there on the islands? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Is there any way to 
determine the age of a seal from an exami- 
nation of the skin after it is taken off the 
body? 

Dr. Townsend. Oh, yes; I think a per- 
son handling a considerable number of 
then would be able to throw out the differ- 
ent ages. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. There seem to have 
been two ways of determining the age of a 
seal, one is by the measurement of the skin 
and the other by the weight. You are 
familiar, I suppose, with both methods? 

Dr. Townsend. Only from hearsay. I 
do not know that I ever measured one or 
ever weighed one. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You have no prac- 
tical information on that subject? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no practical in- 
formation on that subject. I do not re- 
member that that matter was ever in my 
instructions at any time. I do not re- 
member that I ever went into it. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. So far as your in- 
formation goes, which do you regard as 
the more reliable way of determining the 
age of a seal, by measurement or by weight? 

Dr. Townsend. I can not say. I have 
not gone into that subject. (Hearing No. 
12, pp. 736, 737, May 24, 1912.^ 



196 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Bowers swears that Townsend 
advised him as a member of the 
fur-seal advisory board. 

Mr. Patton. These recommendations 
were made to your bureau? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes. 

Mr. Patton. And were not made by 
you at all? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir. 

Mr. Patton. But were made by this 
advisory board? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:] 

" It is recommended that, for the pres- 
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 
8J pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be 
taken, and that not more than 95 per cent 
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in 
any one year." (Hearing No. 2, p. Ill, 
June 9, 1911.) 



But Townsend swears he does 
not know anything of the job, and 
does not know what he said to 
Nagel. 

The Chairman. What do you know of 
the composition of the catch of 12,920 fur- 
seal skins taken by orders of Hon. Charles 
Nagel, Secretary of Commerce and Labor, 
and Mr. George M. Bowers, United States 
Fish Commissioner, during the season of 
1910 on the Pribilof Islands? 

Dr. Townsend. I am not posted on the 
composition of that catch. The catch 
made on the islands is supposed to be 
made from seals that are over 1 year old, 
from the 2-year-olds and from some of the 
small 3-year-olds. Perhaps I should say 
the 3-year-olds with some of the smaller 
4-year-olds and the larger 2-year-olds. I 
do not remember exactly what they were 
killing, but they were skins of sizes which 
were highly marketable, and that the fur 
trade could use to the best advantage. 
It does not make a great deal of difference 
what size skins you take so long as you do 
not take too many of the males. 

The Chairman. How many of these 
12,920 skins are skins not taken from seals 
under 2 years of age? 

Dr. Townsend. I have not examined 
the records of their ages or the records of 
their sizes, and can not answer the ques- 
tion without consulting the records. 

The Chairman. Did you have a talk 
with Secretary Nagel after he received, 
on May 10, 1910, the printed protest of 
the Camp Fire Club of America against 
the issue of the orders to kill 13,000 seals 
during the season of 1910? 

Dr. Townsend. I have frequently 
called on Secretary Nagel when I have 
been in Washington, and I have discussed 
seal matters with him, but what I have 
said to him I can not say. I do not re- 
member discussing that point with him. 

The Chairman. What did you discuss 
with him? 

Dr. Townsend. Matters pertaining to 
the seal islands in general. 

The Chairman. Did Secretary Nagel 
consult with you before sending his reply 
of May 15, 1910, to this protest of the 
Camp Fire Club? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not remember. I 
do not remember that I ever talked over 
the matter with Mr. Nagel until after the 
Camp Fire Club had been agitating the 
matter for some time. 

The Chairman. Well, you did discuss 
it with him, didn't you? 

Dr. Townsend. I have discussed fur 
seals with him. (Hearing No. 13, p. 801, 
June 8, 1912.) 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



197 



Townsend swears that he never 
believed in renewing the seal lease. 



The Chairman. Dr. Townsend, you 
were asked at a former hearing whether 
you wrote a letter advising the releasing 
of the islands for another term of years. 

Dr. Townsend. 1 believe there was 
.such a question. 

The Chairman. And there was such a 
letter produced in the hearing, or a copy 
of a letter for the hearing. That letter 
was dated, I think, January, 1910, was it 
not? 

Dr. Townsend. I have forgotten the 
letter. 1 have not seen it since then. 

The Chairman. The letter is dated 
Janaury 31, 1910. 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. $ 

The Chairman. On November 17, 
1909, the advisory board had a meeting in 
which you participated and pursuant to 
which you made some recommendations 
to the Secretary of Commerce and Labor. 
Do you remember that there was such a 
meeting? 

Dr. Townsend. 1 was at such a meet- 
ing; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the printed docu- 
ments here show that it was on November 
23, 1909. Was there any discussion of the 
releasing of the islands at this meeting of 
the advisory board? 

Dr. Townsend. 1 have no distinct rec- 
ollection of just what we did at these meet- 
ings. 1 do not remember that that point 
was discussed with any fullness, at least. 

The Chairman. If you were of the 
opinion that the islands should not be re- 
leased, why did you not make such a 
recommendation to the Secretary, to- 
gether with the other members of the 
board? 

Dr. Townsend. I was never of the 
opinion that the islands should be re- 
leased. 1 simply supposed that it would 
be impossible for the Government to take 
them over, and that they would be re- 
leased no matter what anybody could say, 
because they had always been leased. 
While I lived on the islands, there was 
always more or less friction between the 
lessees and the Government's authorities, 
and I always felt that the Government 
had as well have the profits of the seal 
islands rather than divide them with the 
lessees. (Hearing No. 13, p. 797, June 8, 
1912.) 



But Townsend "as a member 
of the advisory board" urges a 
renewal of the seal lease. 

The "advisory board" gets busy — must 
renew the Elkins lease. 

New York Aquarium, 
Battery Park, New York, January 31,1910. 
Hon. George M. Bowers, 

Commissioner United States Bureau of 
Fisheries, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: As a member of the fur-seal 
advisory board of your department and 
one always interested in matters pertain- 
ing to the fur-seal industry, I wish to call 
your attention to an important letter re- 
ceived from Mr. Alfred Fraser, which is 
inclosed herewith. 

I have known Mr. Fraser for many years 
and have every confidence in his knowl- 
edge of this subject, as well as his entire 
sincerity. During the many years that 
the subject of the fur-seal fishery has been 
before our Government authorities he has 
supplied freely important statistics cf the 
fur-seal trade. He has been the principal 
American buyer of sealskins in this coun- 
try, and has been in the business for a 
lifetime. 

There can be no doubt that a reduction 
in the number of sealskins now coming 
from the Pribilofs would be of most inju- 
rious to the sealskin trade. 

It is to be hoped that the Pribilof Is- 
lands will be released this year, and that 
a small supply of skins will be kept avail- 
able to the fur trade. The reasons for this 
are strongly set forth in Mr. Fraser's letter. 

It is also important that the Treasury 
Department be requested to reconsider 
the matter of duty on sealskins. 

The margin of profit left to the trade 
after the payment of duties on skins whose 
value is already enhanced by the Gov- 
ernment tax on the Pribilof catch, makes 
them enormously expensive. In fact, 
their cost is almost prohibitive. 

I feel that with fur-seal service trans- 
ferred to your bureau and the presence in 
your office of a number of men well in- 
formed on this subject, you are in a posi- 
tion to make a good presentation of Mr. 
Fraser's letter to the proper authorities, 
and I earnestly hope that you will under- 
take to have this important matter prop- 
erly presented. 

I would suggest also that a copy of this 
letter be sent to Senator Dixon, who has 
introduced a resolution calling for a cessa- 
tion of seal killing on the Pribilofs, which 
would undoubtedly result in more harm 
than good at the present time. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

C. H. Townsend. 

(Hearing No. 3, July 6, 1911, pp. 159, 
160.) 



198 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Townsend does not remember 
that lie did anything to try and 
defeat the re-leasing bill. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you, at the time 
Mr. Bowers asked you to take up with 
the Campfire Club of America the sub- 
ject of renewing the fur-seal lease 

Dr. Townsend. What is the question? 

Mr. Elliott. Did you, at the time 
Mr. Bowers asked you to take up with 
the Campfire Club of America the sub- 
ject of renewing the fur-seal lease, in 
which Ogden Mills is interested, have 
any 

Dr. Townsend (interposing). I have 
no recollection of Mr. Bowers asking me 
to take up the matter of the Campfire 
Club. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not? Let me 
see if you do not. On page 157, of hear- 
ing No. 3, is a letter dated "Department 
of Commeice and Labor, Bureau of 
Fisheries, Washington, D. C, December 
16, 1909," signed by "Barton W. Ever- 
mann" (p. 157) — Have you got it? 

Department op Com. and Labor, 
Bureau op Fisheries, 
Washington, December 16, 1909. 
The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 
last announced that the Campfire Club, 
of New York, had inaugurated a campaign 
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla- 
tion designed to prevent the re-leasing 
of the sealing right, the cessation of all 
killing on the islands for 10 years except 
for natives' food, and to secure the open- 
ing of negotiations with Great Britain 
to revise the regulations of the Paris 
tribunal. As the result of this move- 
ment, on December 7 three resolutions 
were introduced by Senator Dixon, of 
Montana, one of which embodies the pro- 
visions before mentioned, the other two 
calling for the publication of fur-seal 
correspondence and reports since 1904. 

As the object of this movement is at 
variance with the program of this bureau 
and of the recommendations of the 
advisory fur-seal board, notably in the 
plan to prevent killing and the renewal 
of the seal island lease, the advisability 
is suggested of having Messrs. Townsend, 
Lucas, and Stanley Brown use their 
influence with such members of the 
Campfire Club as they may be acquainted 
with with the object of correctly inform- 
ing the club as to the exact present status 
of the seal question and of securing its 
cooperation to effect the adoption of the 
measures advocated by this bureau. 1 

The attached letter is prepared, hav- 
ing in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Evermann. 



But Lucas remembers — Town- 
send started him. 



Mr. Elliott. Yes. Now, I would like 
to ask you, Dr. Lucas, with this letter 
before you, who called on you, and asked 
you to go to work and stop this legisla- 
tion in Congress? 

Dr. Lucas. At the immediate moment 
I do not recall that anyone called upon 
me and asked me to stop this legislation 
in Congress. 

Mr. Elliott. This resolution of Senator 
Dixon's presented December 7, 1909; 
you don't remember anyone at all calling 
on you in regard to that? 

Dr. Lucas. If anyone it was Dr. Town- 
send. 

Mi. Elliott. Did he cite any authority 
for calling on you? 

Dr. Lucas. He did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Just his own individual 
idea? 

Dr. Lucas. To the best of my knowl- 
edge he said this resolution was up — I 
wish this to be taken down as mere hear- 
say, Mr. Chairman; he called me up over 
the phone and said this resolution was 
up, and asked me to write a protest 
against it, which I did. 

The Chairman. A protest against the 
enactment of the law? 

Dr. Lucas. Against the enactment of 
the proposed law making a closed season. 
(Hearing No. 12, pp. 724, 725, May 16 
1912.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



199 



Dr. Townsend. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Is that letter under your 
eye so I do not need to read it? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes: I have read this 
Idler here, sir. What do you wish to 
ask me in connection with it? 

Mr. Eliiott. Who called on you, who 
used their influence with you. before 
you went to Mr. Lucas, and asked him to 
write letters to Members of Congress 
opposing the Dixon resolution, which 
prevented the renewal of the lease? 
Who asked you to go to Mr. Lucas? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not remember 
that anybody asked me to go to Mr. 
Lucas. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 775, 776, 
May 26, 1912.) 

Townsend is engaged in the 
business of "preventing well- 
meaning Congressmen from being 
deceived," etc. 

[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.] 

To the Editor of Science : In Science 
for February 2 Mr. Marshall McLean, 
member of the Camp Fire Club, enters 
the list of those who would by indirection 
ruin the fur-seal herd. He would have 
"natural conditions'' rule upon the fur- 
seal islands and ''all killing of selected 
males for commercial purposes * * * 
cease until the tide of increase in the fur- 
seal herd has once more set toward the 
flood." He lays down as reason for this 
the principle "'that when any species of 
wild animal has become so depleted as to 
be in danger of extinction, the best rem- 
edy is to let it absolutely alone." 

"This is not the first time I have en- 
deavored to prevent well-meaning Con- 
gressmen from being deceived by the mis- 
representations which have been poured 
upon them for many years. The mischief- 
maker referred to has bobbed up every 
other year for the past 18 years and has 
been discredited every time. I hope you 
will look up his record as just published 
in House Document No. 93, Sixty-second 
Congress, first session, pages 1153-1162." 

The Member of the House to wdiom I 
sent this letter has at last presented an 
amendment to the State Department bill 
in which he proposes to limit the killing 
of male seals to 5,000 a year for five years, 
7,500 a year for the following five years, 
and 10,000 annually for Ave years after 
that. At the end of 15 years new regu- 
lations to be adopted. 

Now that is better. The gentleman has 
evidently been thinking it over. We 
shouldn't probably kill much closer if 
allowed to have our own way. Perhaps 
by the time the treaty bill reaches the 
Senate Congress will decide that the 
Bureau of Fisheries is able to handle the 
seal fishery safely for the seal herd and 
for the Government. 



The well-meaning Congressmen 
take notice of Townsend's efforts; 
they are not deceived. 



In 1893 proceedings were commenced 
in the State Department, claiming dam- 
ages on the part of owners, master, and 
crew of the James Hamilton Lewis. 
H. H. D. Peirceand Charles H. Townsend, 
" sealing experts," of the United States 
Bureau of Fisheries, prepared the cases 
for the parties interested and presented 
the claim on the part of the United States 
against the Russian Government at The 
Hague in 1902, which resulted in an award 
of approximately $50,000 in favor of the 
United States Government for the use of 
the parties interested, including Alexan- 
der McLean and Max Weisman, Novem- 
ber 29, 1902. The said H. H. D. Peirce 
and Charles H. Townsend presented the 
claim of Max Weisman as the owner of the 
vessel James Hamilton Lewis before the 
tribunal at The Hague, when in truth and 
in fact the owner of said schooner at the time 
of its seizure was Herman Liebes, of San 
Francisco. The said H. H. D. Peirce and 
Charles H. Townsend represented to the tri- 
bunal in the trial of said case that Alexander 
McLean, the captain of said vessel, was an 
American citizen, when in truth and fact he 
was a British subject and notoriously 
known as a pirate. (See pp. 754, 755. 
Hearing No. 12.) 

The committee therefore recommends: 

(1) That the Attorney General be re- 
quested to take such steps as may be 
necessary to collect the bond of $500,000 
from the said North American Commer- 
cial Co. and the sureties thereon. 

(2) That the Attorney General be re- 
quested to institute civil proceedings 
against Isaac Liebes personally to recover 
such damages as he and his confederates 
did to the seal herd of Alaska from 1890 
to 1910. 

(3) That the State Department take >t}> 
with Russia the matter of the case of the 



200 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



As to the criticism of my general state- 
ment about the Uncinaria parasite, I can 
only reply that our diminished rookeries 
are not at present overspreading into the 
parasite-infected sand areas. In fact. 
Mr. Heath states, as quoted by Mr. 
McLean, "'these areas have been aban- 
doned." They must of course be fenced 
to protect the younger seals from infec- 
tion as soon as the breeding grounds 
begin to expand. As to shooting some of 
the big males when they get too numer- 
ous, it would puzzle the experts, as well 
as Mr. McLean, to say which were the 
fittest to survive. They all look alike.. 
Old ocean attends to the matter of selec- 
tion in the case of the fur seal, weaklings 
do not survive the seven months' migra- 
tion swim among the killer whales of the 
Pacific. If Mr. McLean will bring his 
committee to my office where there is a 
fairly complete set of rookery photo- 
graphs and charts, he will get a clearer 
understanding of the PribUof breeding 
grounds than he has at present. The fact 
is that the innocent Camp Fire Club is 
being used by the unscrupulous lobby 
which has always been kept at work by 
the pelagic sealers. One excuse suits it 
as well as another; this time it is the kill- 
ing of surplus males. It is a pity that 
year after year it should succeed in getting 
the support of men of good standing who 
happen to be ignorant of the real facts 
involved. 

C. H. Towsend, 
Member Advisory Board Fvr Seal Service. 

(Healing No. 10. pp. 597, 598, Apr. 20, 
1912.) 

Townsend, in 1895, declared 
that the land killing was injuri- 
ous. 

In the investigation made by said com- 
mission the methods of land killing as well 
as pelagic sealing should be studied. It 
may be remembered that Mr. Henry W. 
Elliott, formerly United States special 
agent, in his report of 1890, claimed that 
the methods of driving and killing the 
seals on the land were injurious to the 
herd. In this conclusion he is corrobo- 
rated by Mr. Townsend, of the Fish Com- 
mission, whose report is also annexed. 
(Report of Chas. S. Hamlin, Asst. Secy. 
Treasury, Mar. 1, 1895, p.. 452: " Seal and 
Salmon Fisheries. " Vol . 1 , 1898 . ) 



"James Hamilton Lewis" for the purpose 
of rectifying the wrong done by said Liebes, 
C. H. Tovmsend, and H. H. D. Peirce, 
against the Government of Russia, a friendly 
power. 

(4) That with a view to carrying this 
recommendation into effect the Clerk of 
the House be directed to forward to the 
Secretary of State a certified copy of this 
report, together with a complete set of 
the official hearings before this com- 
mittee on this subject. 

John H. Rothermel. 

Jas. T. McDermott. 

James Young. 

D. J. McGlLLICUDDY. 

(H. Rept. No. 1425, Jan. 31. 1913. 62d 
Cong., 3d sess., pp. 4, 5.) 



But he fell down in the shadow 
of Jordan and found that the 
lessees do no harm. 

Mr. McGuire. Have you made any 
investigations recently as to what the 
Government is doing, and as to whether, 
in your judgment, the killing is being 
carried on just as it should be done, result- 
ing in a reduction of the number of the 
surplus males? 

Dr. Townsend. I am of the opinion 
that the matter is being very carefully 
handled by men who understand it; that 
they are harvesting such of the crop as 
should be harvested, and that they are 
saving a sufficient number of breeding 
males. Now that the convention with 
Russia, Japan, and Great Britain looking 
to the cessation of pelagic sealing has been 
held, I think that the treaty should be 
ratified and pelagic sealing put an end to. 
I do not think that the males should be 
killed too closely, and I am not of the 
opinion that they have been killed too 
closely. (Hearing No. 13, p. 810; June 
8, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. C. and L.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



201 



Townsend swears that he pro- 
duced documents at The Hague 
which refuted charges of piracy 
In re the James Hamilton Lewis 
claim. 

The Chairman. Did you know at the 
time that they were the owners of these 
vessels in which this pirate turned up? 

Dr. Townsend. No; I never knew 
anything about that until those things 
were brought out at The Hague. 

The Chairman. It was developed at 
The Hague that the Liebes were the 
owners of this vessel? 

Dr. Townsend. That is my recollec- 
tion. 

The Chairman. And I suppose that is 
in the public records? 

Dr. Townsend. Everything, sir,* that 
is connected with the matter must be 
between the covers of that book and be 
between the covers of some other public 
document in which the matter was 
brought up a year or so later on, perhaps 
by Mr. Elliott. But it is all published. 

Mr. Elliott. When this was brought 
out at The Hague, what did you advise 
Mr. Pierce to do, as his "expert pelagic 
sealing adviser"? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know that Mr. 
Pierce ever asked me for advice over 
there. He instructed me to produce 
certain documents that would help him 
refute claims, etc. I was a statistician. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you produce any 
documents that refuted Liebes's claim? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no recollection 
in regard to it. Whatever was done is in 
the book. 

Mr. McGnxictrDDY. Why did you 
ignore the abundant sworn testimony on 
file in the Department of State since 1893 
that the James Hamilton Lewis was a seal- 
ing "pirate," or raider, of seal rookeries 
on the Commander Islands in 1890 and 
1891? 

Dr. Townsend. I had no information 
about the ownership of vessels that were 
said to be raiding rookeries until the time 
that I was sent to The Hague. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Well, did you 
know that there was sworn testimony on 
file in the 'Department of State in 1893 
that the James Hamilton Lewis was a seal- 
ing "pirate," or raider, of seal rookeries 
on the Commander Islands in 1890 and 
1891? 

Dr. Townsend. No; I only knew from 
hearing it discussed, or knowing about the 
raids as I saw it discussed in the news- 
papers. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. If your attention 
was called to it in that way, did you make 



But the facts of sworn record 
prove that the Levns claim (her 
owner and master's) was a fraudu- 
lent one, and known widely as 
such. 

Mr. Elliott. 

THE PROGRESSION OF CAFT. ALEXANDER 
M'LEAN AS AN "AMERICAN CITIZEN." 

1890. In command of the J. Hamilton 
Lewis; H. Liebes, owner; raMs Copper 
Island and gets off, August 1, with two 
men badly hurt. 

1891. In command of the J. Hamilton 
Lewis; seized August 2, while raiding 
Copper Island with the crew of the E. E. 
Webster, owned by H. Liebes and com- 
manded by his brother ; vessel confiscated 
and he is imprisoned at Vladivostock a 
few weeks. 

1892. In command of the Rosa Sparks, 
sealing schooner, of San Francisco; no 
raids this year. 

1893. In command of the. steam sealer 
Alexander, flying the Hawaiian flag; he is 
caught by the U. S. S. Mohican raiding 
Northeast Point, St. Paul Island, in July, 
but escapes in the fog because the war 
vessel's engines were disabled. 

1894 to 1902. In command of various 
pelagic vessels, but under restraint from 
the lessees, since the claim of the /. Ham- 
ilton Lewis is being prepared and pressed, 
up to its successful end November 29, 
1902, at The Hague. 

1896. He appears as a •true American " 
before the claims award commission, 
which sits at Victoria, in settlement of 
damage suits against the United States 
Government for seized sealers and vessels 
in 1866-1889; he testifies, "at the peril of 
his life," for the American commissioners 
as to the value of the British boats seized. 
(See Rept. 2128, Senate bill 3410, 58th 
Cong., 2d sess.) He is in truth working 
for the highest figures obtainable from tin 1 
United States Treasury, instead of the 
lowest. 

1903. He can not lie placed with cer- 
tainty this year. 

1904. He raids Copper Island August 2, 
in the "Mexican" schooner Cervencita;. 
one of his men seriously shot. 

1905. He attempts a raid on St. Paul 
Island, Northeast Point, but is driven off; 
he is sailing in the Acapulco, and defies 
arrest by the United States agents, for he 
is a British subject; at Victoria, British 
Columbia, in October, 1905. 

1906. Be raids St. Paul Island July 
16-17, with a Japanese outfit; five Japs 
killed, and 12 prisoners taken; there is a 
fleet engaged in this raid, which attacked 



202 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



any effort to ascertain what the evidence 
was that was on file in the department? 

Dr. Townsend. No. (Hearing No. 12, 
p. 774, Mav 25, 1912; Hearing No. 13, p. 
818, June 8, 1912). 

Townsend swears that it was no 
concern of his when he learned 
that the Lewis's claim was fraud- 
ulent — he was a " youngster" at 
the time he vouched for it. 

The Chairman. Don't you know that 
the Liebes received that money? 

Dr. Townsend. I know that damages 
were awarded in favor of the United States 
for these vessels, but how much was al- 
lowed to the owners of this vessel I do not 
know. 

The Chairman. Don't you know that 
the Liebes received it? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know. I sup- 
pose they did. I presume they did. The 
case was decided in favor of the United 
States, and I have no doubt they were 
paid; but from personal knowledge of it, 
I can not say. 

The Chairman. Do you swear that they 
did not receive it? 

Dr. Townsend. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you swear that 
they did not own the vessel? 

Dr. Townsend. No, sir; I certainly 
could not do that. 

The Chairman. Don't you know that 
they did own it? 

Dr. Townsend. I think they owned it; 
yes, sir; and they probably were paid. I 
am simply avoiding the making of a state- 
ment about a thing of which I am not ab- 
solutely positive. 

The Chairman. Do you know Avhether 
it was important that the Government offi- 
cials or the Secretary of the Treasury 
should have found out that the Liebes 
were the owneis of this vessel in order that 
they could take propel action, so far as the 
lease was concerned, or upon the bond that 
was given by the company to the Govern- 
ment? 

Dr. Townsend. No, sir; I was a good 
deal of a youngster, and I did not meddle 
with those matters of the Government 
that did not concern me at all. fHearino 
No. 13, p. 805, June 8, 1912.) 



five rookeries at once and on the same 
days; they got away from all of them, 
except Northeast Point, with seals and 
no casualties. (Hearing No. 4, p. 184, 
July 11, 1911.) 

But Townsend was 43 years 
old — an old " youngster" to plead 
the baby act He was born in 
1859. He vouched for this job in 
1902. 

Townsend, Charles Haskins: Zoologist, 
b. Parnassus, Pa., September 29, 1859. 
* * * fisheries expert Russo-American 
Arbitration at The Hague, 1902 * * *. 
Address, Aquarium, New York. (Who's 
Who in America, 1912-13, p. 2113.) 

(Note. — This is Townsend's own de- 
scription of his age and standing when he 
vouched for the pirate McLean and lessee 
Liebes's claim as being "just and valid" 
at The Hague, June-July,' 1902.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



203 



The bogus log of the pirate ship 
sent to the State Department by 
lessee Liebes December 8, 1899. 



Mr. Elliott. The claim dragged, be- 
cause the log book of the Lewis was in the 
hands of its captors. It was necessary 
that a log book be produced which would 
show that at the time of the seizure the 
Lewis was on the high seas. The log book 
taken by the Russians does not show 
where the vessel was at the time or what 
she had been doing. This difficulty is 
met by Liebes, who, through an agent, 
George R. Tingle, the general manager of 
the lessees of the seal islands, who, on 
December 8, sends, with a letter, the 
"original log" of the J. Hamilton Lewis. 
McLean swears to it and Tingle^vouches 
for it to Secretary of State Olney!* Tingle 
says that this long delay (six years) in 
producing the log was due to his absence 
from the city, when, in truth, he was in 
Washington nine months of each year ever 
since 1899 up to the date of the letter. 
But this log, which owners and masters 
have offered as the original log of the 
J. Hamilton Lewis, is soberly and sol- 
emnly received at the State Department 
as a bona fide exhibit for presentation at 
The Hague. (Hearing No. 4, p. 181, 
July 11, 1911.) 



Townsend don't know Liebes — 
he does not know much about 
San Francisco pelagic-sealing 
facts — he got the great bulk of 
that data in Victoria, British Co- 
lumbia. 

Mr. Elliott. Dr. Townsend. when did 
you first meet Isaac and Herman Liebes? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no recollection 
of ever meeting either of them. 

Mr. Elliott. You do not know them? 

Dr. Townsend. I am pretty sure that 
I have never met either of them. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you never seen 
them? 

Dr. Townsend. I have never seen 
them. 

Mr. Elliott. You never have conferred 
with them? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no recollection 
of it. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you ever been in 
their place of business? 

Dr. Townsend. They used to have a 
big store in San Francisco; it is possible 
I may have been in it. I have no recol- 



Townsend, as an ''expert," 
vouches for this pirate's log being 
genuine and legally in form, at 
The Hague July, 1902. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Do you mean to 
say that our Government claimed dam- 
ages for the seizure of a vessel by the 
Russian Government when such vessel 
was engaged in pelagic sealing? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. And that was done 
through our State Department? 

Dr. Townsend. That is about my rec- 
ollection. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You were there as 
an expert, were you not? 

Dr. Townsend. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I do not want him to 
make a statement that he can not sub- 
stantiate, but I would like to know now, 
Dr. Townsend, in what capacity you 
were at The Hague Tribunal in this 
matter? 

Dr. Townsend. In the progress of the 
work before The Hague Tribunal it be- 
came necessary for the Secretary to pro- 
duce information on various sealing 
matters, such as the movements of sealing 
vessels. I carried along with me a trunk 
full of log books of sealing vessels. We 
would have before us the charges made 
by the Russian representative during the 
day, and we would work all night pre- 
paring something to refute the charges. 
I carried the log books that had been 
taken from the vessels. (Hearing No. 12, 
pp. 756, 758, May 24, 1912.) 

But when Victoria is reached, 
Townsend has no data whatever 
as to pelagic-sealing business duly 
claimed by him May 25, last. 



The Chairman. Who compose the Vic- 
toria Sealers' Association? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know who the 
officers are. 

The Chairman . What is their business? 

Dr. Townsend. I suppose it is a com- 
pany for the carrying on of pelagic sealing. 
They are the owners of vessels, and must 
be located in Victoria. 

The Chairman. Is that their place of 
business? 

Dr. Townsend. Very likely. I can 
hardly imagine that it would be anywhere 
else. 

The Chairman. How long have they 
been in business there? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know, but 
probably for a good many years. 

The Chairman. Do you know a man 
by the name of Morris Moss? 



204 



FUE-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



lection of ever going there to see those 
men. 

Mr. Elliott. You were engaged asan 
employee of the Bureau of Fisheries, 
looking into this matter of pelagic sealing 
for a number of years, were you not? 
And, in your reports, you had occasion 
to see the "owners" and look into "the 
books of the owners" of pelagic-sealing 
vessels, did you not? 

Dr. Town'send. I got most of my log 
books directly from captains of vessels. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you not know from 
your investigation that Liebes was the 
largest dealer in pelagic sealskins on the 
Pacific coast? 

Dr. Townsend. The great bulk of my 
data was obtained, not in San Francisco, 
but in Victoria. 

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 773, 774, May 25, 
1912.) 



Townsend repeats the falsehood 
of Jordan in re a fictitious pelagic- 
sealer's lobby — the former takes 
his cue from the latter's telegram 
to Congress. 



[Science, Mar. 1, 1912.] 

To the Editor of Science: 

If Mr. McLean will bring his committee 
to my office where there is a fairly com- 
plete set of rookery photographs and 
charts, he will get a clearer understand- 
ing of the Pribilof breeding grounds than 
he has at present. The fact is that the 
innocent Camp Fire Club is being used 
by the unscrupulous lobby which has 
always been kept at work by the pelagic 
sealers. One excuse suits it as well as 
another, this time it is the killing of sur- 
plus males. It is a pity that year after 
year it should succeed in getting the 
support of men of good standing who hap- 
pen to be ignorant of the real facts in- 
volved. 

C. H. Townsend, 
Member Advisory Board Fur Seal Service. 

(Hearing No. 10, pp. 597-598, Apr. 20, 

1912.) 



Dr. Townsend. I do not remember any 
such person. 

The Chairman. Do you know that he is 
connected with the Sealers' Association, or 
the Victoria Sealers' Association. 

Dr. Townsend. No, sir; I have no in- 
formation on the subject. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any 
business relation between Liebes & Co. 
and the Victoria Sealers' Association? 

Dr. Townsend. No. sir. 

The Chairman. You never did dis- 
cover that as long as you were connected 
with the Bureau of Fisheries? 

Dr. Townsend. I was probably not in- 
terested in it at all. As furriers, they 
were probably were interested in every 
thing of that kind. 

The Chairman. Lampson & Co. have 
an agent with the Victoria Sealers' Asso- 
ciation, have they not? 

Dr. Townsend. I can not say; I do 
not know. 

The Chairman. Do you know the num- 
ber of skins that were consigned by the 
Victoria Sealers' Association in 1895 and 
1896? 

Dr. Townsend. No, sir; but that is a 
matter of record, no doubt. 

(Hearing No. 13, pp. 807, 808, June 8, 
1912.) 

Townsend attempts a denial of 
the responsibility of the deroga- 
tory Osborn-Grant letter, while 
Elliott proves that in 1909 he re- 
fused to admit an}' "rights" for 
pelagic sealers. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. Dr. Townsend, I 
have in my hand a letter signed by Henry 
Fairfield Osborn and Madison Grant, 
president and chairman of the New York 
Zoological Society, general office, No. 11 
Wall Street, dated February 8, 1912, ad- 
dressed to the Hon. W. S. Goodwin, Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, 
D. C. In this letter appears the follow- 
ing paragraph: 

"Mr. Henry W. Elliott, who holds 
views opposite to the foregoing, is and 
has been for many years a man entirely 
discredited in the scientific world and 
is not taken seriously by anyone who has 
followed his record in connection with 
this subject during the past 18 years. 
We believe that those who have sup- 
ported him in this unnecessary and sense- 
less agitation, which has been solely in- 
stigated by him, have been grossly mis- 
led." 

I ask if you inspired that letter? 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



205 



Palo Alto, Cal., 

February 5, 1912. 
Hon. Wm. Sulzer, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C: 
To incorporate a clause establishing in 
fur-seal bill a close season prohibiting 
killing of superfluous males would do no 
good to herd, but would kill treaty. No 
one knows this better than the pelagic- 
sealers' lobby, which for 20 years has 
been led by Henry W. Elliott. 

David Starr Jordan. 

(Hearing No. 12, p. 771, May 25, 1912.) 



Townsend and Lucas deny Os- 
born' s letter. 

Mr. Elliott. Did .you inspire the 
letter which Henry Fairfield Osborn, 
president of the American Museum of 
Natural History, wrote to Chairman 
William Sulzer? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. Kindly note, 
Mr. Elliott asked if I inspired that letter. 

The Chairman. Do you know any- 
thing about it? 

Dr. Lucas. Only after it was written. 

The Chairman. Were you in consulta- 
tion about it with anyone? 

Dr. Lucas. No; my advice was not 
asked. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you agree with Mr. 
Osborn in this statement: 

New York Zoological Society, 
New York, January 22, 1912. 
My Dear Mr. Sulzer: I understand 
there is a proposal to add to the fur-seal 
bill drafted by the State Department an 



Dr. Townsend. Mr. Chairman, do I un- 
derstand that this question comes from 
you? 

Mr. Elliott. It comes from me. 

Dr. Townsend. Must I submit to the 
cross-examination by Mr. Elliott? 

The Chairman. You will just answer 
the question. 

Dr. Townsend. I am not responsible 
for the writings of Mr. Grant or Mr. Os- 
born. I have nothing to do with their 
statements. 

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 768, 769, May 25, 
1912.) 
17 Grace Ave., Lakewood, Ohio, 

November 3, 1909. 
Dr. David Starr Jordan, 

Stanford University, Cal. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 6th in- 
stant has been duly received. With re- 
gard to that appearance of my track chart 
in your report of 1896, you seem to be not 
quite clear in your mind as to how it got 
in there as it did. Perhaps the following 
statement of fact may help you to know 
its publication there without that credit 
given to me as its author which is indis- 
putably mine: 

With regard for the "rights" of those 
Victorian sea wolves, I hope that they 
will never get a penny for their rotting 
vessels or their "good will." They have 
had far, far too much already at the ex- 
pense of humanity and decency. Let 
their vessels rot, and let their owners rot 
with them. 

Very truly, yours, 

Henry W. Elliott. 

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 763, 764, May 25, 
1912.) 

But Osborn says they advised 
how to write. 
Mr. Elliott (reading): 

The American Museum 
of Natural History, 
Office of the President, 
New York, January 22, 1912. 

Dear Sir: As president of the Ameri- 
can Museum of Natural History, I have 
been securing the advice of the expert 
zoologists of this institution, especially 
of Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, who is a trained 
authority on the fur-seal question. I 
desire to protest against the proposed 
amendment to the fur-seal bill (drafted 
by the State Department), which amend- 
ment provides a 15-year closed season on 
male seals. This amendment, should it 
become law, would exterminate the great 
seal herd of the United States, and is 
founded upon ignorance of the first 
principles of breeding under natural con- 
ditions, and of the artifical conditions 



206 



FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



amendment for a 15-year closed season on 
male seals. 

This amendment is a vicious one, 
which will certainly lead to the complete 
extermination of the seals. I understand 
it was proposed by Mr. Elliott, who has 
no standing in this country as a zoologist, 
and I believe is supported by my friend 
Dr. Hornaday, who, I regret to say, has 
come under the influence of Mr. Elliott. 
Dr. Hornaday's position in the matter is 
entirely personal, and does not in any 
way represent the judgment of the New 
York Zoological Society. All the zoolo- 
gists of note in this country, all the scien- 
tific experts whose opinions are worthy 
of consideration, all the trained experts 
who have made a special study of the fur- 
seal problem, all naturalists who under- 
stand that an excess of males is fatal to 
both the females and the young, and 
finally all those who desire through in- 
telligent study of the question from 
motives of humanity as well as from mo- 
tives to protect the economic intere'sts of 
the United States, are opposed to the 
15-year closed season. 

The reason is a very simple one, which 
you can yourself readily understand, 
namely, that there is an unnatural excess 
of males on the islands, due to the fact 
that pelagic sealing has destroyed 85 
females out of the 100 in the herd; thus 
the balance of nature has been destroyed . 
When there are not enough females to go 
around, the bulls will fight for them, and 
in doing so will kill both the females and 
the pups. Under natural conditions of 
breeding there would be an equal number 
of females and males; nature takes care of 
these things, but the pelagic sealers have 
produced a set of new and entirely arti- 
ficial conditions; consequently the pro- 
posal of the United States Fish Commis- 
sion experts to keep down the resulting 
excess of males, and thus to restore 
gradually the balance which nature has 
instituted for all time between the sexes 
is the only one which will preserve this 
great herd . 

I have given this matter very prolonged, 
study and have read all the documents, 
and I regret to say that your committee 
has been given a great amount of misin- 
formation under the guise of sentiment 
for the protection of these animals. I am 
one of the most ardent advocates of pro- 
tection of the wild animal life of this 
country and in this spirit and in the 
interests of my country I can not express 
myself too emphatically. My opinion is 
identical (with the exception of my 
friend Dr. Hornaday) with that of all 
the leading zoologists and mammalogists 
of rank in the United States, and if you 
desire I can have prepared for your com- 
mittee at short notice a document signed 
by all these men. The article by Hugh 



which have been brought about on the 
islands through prolonged and fateful 
pelagic sealing. 

I am, very respectfully, 
Henry Fairfield Osborn, 

President. 
Hon. William Sulzer, 

Chairman Committee on Foreign 
Affairs, House of Representatives, 
Washington, I). C. 

I am strongly in favor of the bill itself. 

Now, how did he get the idea that they 
would be exterminated after he had con- 
ferred with your scientific acumen? 

Dr. Lucas. Men may confer, you 
know, and do something entirely different. 

Mr. Elliott. How did he get that im- 
pression, if not from you? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. You will 
find all my publications entirely differ- 
ent from- that. 

Mr. Elliott. So you will not be re- 
sponsible for what Dr. Osborn says? 

Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly 
not. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Did you have any 
part in causing Dr. Henry Fairfield Os- 
born to write to Hon. William Sulzer a 
letter dated January 22, 1912, in which 
the former tells the latter that unless the 
surplus young males are all killed by man 
these animals will, if left alone by man, 
grow up and exterminate the species in a 
few years? Did you inspire that letter? 

Dr. Townsend. That is not such a let- 
ter as I would write. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Do you think he 
stated it sensibly or correctly? 

Dr. Townsend. No; I do not think he 
stated it correctly. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Have you ever 
made any statement about it or protested 
against his statement of it? 

Dr. Townsend. Only as I have written 
about it since then; I have not ventured 
to criticise him, but I have stated the case 
with regard to the seals very plainly a 
number of times. I have not attempted 
to criticise him. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 
722, 723, May 16, 1912 (Lucas's testimony) ; 
Hearing No. 13, pp. _ 824, 825, June 8, 
1912 (Townsend's testimony).) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



207 



M. Smith, of Hit United States Fisheries 
Bureau, one of the fines! at and most 
unprejudiced and -unbiased men of 
science in the country, in the last number 
of the National Geographical Magazine 
exactly expresses the truth on this 
subject. 

With your permission, I should like to 
publish this letter, but will- not do so 
without your permission. 

With best wishes for the prosecution of 

the many grave and important questions 

which are before your committee, and 

with continued personal regard. I am. 

Sincerely, yours. 

Henry Fairfield Osborn, 

President. 

Hon. William Sulzkk. 

Chairman House Committee on For- 
eign Affairs, House of Repre- 
sentatives, Washington, T>. ('. 

Dr. Lucas. I do not agree with that, 
which shows very plainly I did not in- 
spire the letter. 

Townsend, naturalist, does not 
believe the natural law which 
governs wild life is the best; he 
knows better. 

Mr. McGuire. Do you approve the 
present policy, then, that the Govern- 
ment continue the killing? 

Dr. Townsend. I approve that. 

Mr. McGuire. And, in your judgment, 
wdl the seals increase under the present 
regulations and the present method of 
killing by the Government, in case 
pelagic sealing is stopped? 

Dr. Townsend. Oh, yes; they are 
bound to increase. The stock of breeders 
will increase, and when the pelagic sealers 
stop killing the females at sea there will 
be more pups born. The animals are 
polygamous, and the males fight so much 
among themselves that they destroy a 
part of the crop of infant seals by their 
fighting. 

Mr. McGuire. Then, in your judgment, 
there is nothing to be gained by the cessa- 
tion of the killing of the seals, providing 
the regulations are proper? 

Dr. Townsend. There is nothing to be 
gained. The male seals are on shore; 
they do not go away to sea as the females 
do when they are nursing their young, and 
they can be managed ; they can be farmed, 
and the surplus stock of males disposed of 
just the same as you dispose of the surplus 
stock of any domestic animals, your sur- 
plus male stock. It is a clear-cut propo- 
sition, and very well understood by those 
who have been up there. (Hearing No. 
13. p. 812. June 8, 1912.) 



Liebes, seal contractor, has 
carefully studied the question and 
has the same improvement over 
natural law in mind. 

The Chairman. Do you think it would 
be better to kill males not less than 3 years 
old than to kill males less than 2 years 
old? 

Mr. Liebes. Well, naturally, they are 
more valuable; but if there is no pelagic 
sealing at all, then, naturally, it makes no 
difference what you kill, except the 
natural enemies they have in the water. 

The Chairman. But I have always had 
the impression, without knowing any- 
thing about the subject, except what I 
have heard at these hearings, that it was 
killing too closely that would injure the 
herd — I mean, killing them too young. 

Mr. Liebes. Oh, no. As I say, there 
are too many "P's, " too many professors, 
too much politics, and too much pelagic 
sealing; that is what is killing the herd 
more than anything else. 

The Chairman. Is there any politics in 
the killing up there? 

Mr. Liebes. No; not up there, but in 
Washington. You can not run a stock 
farm from Washington and tell them what 
is going to happen next year. You should 
have men there in whom you have con- 
fidence, and let them run the thing. A 
business man, running a stock farm, 
would not sit down in Washington and 
write a letter up north telling them to let 
the stock run wild for 5 or 10 years. My 
Lord, it would be ruinous; that would kill 
off the herd; they would destroy them- 
selves. (Hearing No. 13, p. 878, June 20, 
1912.) 



208 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



One of a hundred reasons why. 

The Chairman. Dr. Townsend, do you 
know the extent to which Liebes dealt in 
sealskins? 

Dr. Townsend. I could not say that 
I know the extent; I simply know they 
were furriers interested in all kinds of 
furs, especially seals. 

The Chairman. Did you know at the 
time that they were the owners of these 
vessels in which this pirate turned up? 

Dr. Townsend. No; I never knew any- 
thing about that until those things were 
brought out at The Hague. 

The Chairman. It was developed at 
The Hague that the Liebes were the 
owners of this vessel? 

Dr. Townsend. That is my recollec- 
tion. 

The Chairman. And I suppose that is 
in the public records? 

Dr. Townsend. Everything, sir, that 
is connected with the matter must be 
between the covers of that book and be 
between the covers of some other public 
document in which the matter was 
brought up a year or so later on, perhaps 
by Mr. Elliott. But it is all published. 

Mr. Elliott. When this was brought 
out at The Hague, what did you advise 
Mr. Pierce to do, as his "expert pelagic 
sealing adviser"? 

Dr. Townsend. I do not know that Mr. 
Pierce ever asked me for advice over 
there. He instructed me to produce 
certain documents that would help him 
refute claims, etc. I was a statistician. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you produce any 
documents that refuted Liebes's claim? 

Dr. Townsend. I have no recollection 
in regard to it. Whatever was done is in 
the book. (Hearing No. 12, p. 774, Mav 
24, 1912.) 

V. 

The sworn statements of Dr. Frederic Augustus Lucas, who is one of the experts cited to 
the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National Resources, January 
14, 1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Department of Commerce and 
Labor, June 9, 1911, by Secretary Charles Nagel, as his authority for hilling seals in 
violation of the law and regulations, to wit: 



Townsend don't like Elliott. 

Dr. Townsend. To go back to the sub- 
ject of the hearings: I have nothing to add 
to what has been said by the hard-work- 
ing and efficient officials of the Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor whom 
Elliott has placed -under fire. What I 
have written in the past year in Science 
has already been reprinted in the hearings, 
and my views are there available. 

I am unwilling, after 20 years of ac- 
quaintance with the ways of Elliott, to 
appear before any committee in which 
he may be an inquisitor, or where he may 
even be present. 

The Chairman. I want to be entirely 
fair to the witness, and would suggest 
that if there is any place you can dis- 
cover in any of the hearings where Mr. 
Elliott falsified or has overstepped the 
truth, so far as the chair is concerned 
you are entirely at liberty to submit the 
statement . 

Mr. Elliott. He should be compelled 
to. 

The Chairman. One moment. I sim- 
ply make that statement on account of 
the allegations in the statement which 
the witness has just read. 

Dr. Townsend. It would take a good 
deal of your time, Mr. Chairman, to go 
through and point these out. 

Mr. Elliott. You will have to before 
you leave the city; I will tell you that. 
You will answer a good many other ques- 
tions to-day. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 739, 
740, May 24, 1912.) 



Mr. Bowers. 



Fur-Seal Board, 

Bureau op Fisheries. 



In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered by 
by a fur-seal board, consisting of the following; 



Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, Director of the American Museum of Natural History, 
member of the Fur Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, and one of the keenest, most 
discerning, and best-known naturalists. * * * (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 
1911.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



209 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Lucas attempts to pass a 
"doped" sales sheet on the com- 
mittee as a genuine sheet. 

Dr. Lucas. May I make a statement? 
In all these sales of skins the skins are ad- 
vertised by weight and not by size. 

Mr. Elliott. Are they advertised by 
weight? Find an advertisement by 
weight in the Lampson catalogues and 
you will find something I have never 
been able to find. 

Dr. Lucas (reading): 

"C. M. Lampson & Co. exposed to sale 
by auction at the College Hill public sale 
room on Friday, December 15, 1911, at 
2 o'clock precisely, the following goods, 
viz, 12,002 skins, salted fur seal, Alaska." 

Here follows the table: 

"Lot 1, 1 middling and small, 10 
pounds, no ounces; 98 smalls, 8 pounds, 
4 ounces." 

Mr. Elliott. Since when was that put 
out? 

Dr. Lucas. Last December. 

Mr. Elliott. That is a notation put on 
by somebody else. 

Dr. Lucas. This is a copy of the list. 

Mr. Elliott. That is not the catalogue 
of sales in London. 

Dr. Lucas. This is a catalogue of the 
sales. 

(Mr. Elliott takes paper.) 

Mr. Elliott. I 've got it here. 

Dr. Lucas. Absolutely; hand that 
paper back here. 

Mr. Elliott. Certainly. Those figures 
ought not to have been written on there. 
They have never been put on in the origi- 
nal statement, and time of sales of those 
skins. (Hearing No. 12, p. 726, May 16. 
1912.) 



But he is exposed and pre- 
vented by the presentation of a 
genuine sheet. 

Dr. Lucas. Show me one where they 
are not in. 

Mr. Elliott. I've got it right here. 
You can look over the London sales cata- 
logues of the Lampsons like this one for 
20 years, and you can find neither weight 
nor measurement. 

Dr. Lucas. Then they don't mean any- 
thing. 

Mr. Elliott. They do "mean any- 
thing." How do you suppose these skins 
are classified? 

Dr. Lucas. By weight. 

Mr. Elliott. No, sir. How could they 
classify them by weight— get the size by 
weight? 

Dr. Lucas. Aren't you willing to say 
that they are classified by weight? 

Mr. Elliott. No; because Mr. Fraser 
says, on pages 30 to 33 of hearing No. 1, 
that they are classified by measurement. 

The Chairman. I do not suppose that 
the people who deal in skins care so much 
about the weight as the size. It is the size 
which is needed to cover a person's back, 
isn't it? 

Mr. McGuire. I do not know how they 
classify them. There seems to be a differ- 
ence in these copies. If this is genuine 
that the doctor has, it seems to me that 
they sometimes do put in the figures of 
of weights and sometimes they do not put 
them in. 

Mr. Elliott. They never have. I have 
the whole series of catalogues for 20 years. 
Tha^ is a notation made by somebody else-, 
exactly as I might make a notation on it 
now and here. 

Dr. Lucas. I would like to ask one 
question, which is if these skins are sold 
by measurement why is it that they are 
always alluded to in the sales and on the 
lists of seals taken as weighing so much? 

Mr. Elliott. I have never known of 
them being alluded to in that way in the 
sales. Here is the sales catalogue of the 
Lampsons' last sale, December 29, 1911. 
There is not the slightest allusion to 
measurement or weight there. They are 
all classified by measurements, which 
govern the sizes of ' ' small pups, " ' ' mid- 
dling pups," etc. 

The Chairman. There seems to be a 
variation in these statements. Is the 
original document here? 

Mr. Elliott. Here it is. I will put it 
right in if you like [handing paper to 
chairman]. (Hearing No. 12, p. 727, May 
16, 1912.) 



21588—13- 



!4 



210 



FUE-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



The "doped" sales sheet of London broker, 
which Lucas presented as genuine. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

Dr. Lucas. No; I have the same thing 
of that very sale, which came from Mr. 
Fraser, Lampson & Co.'s agent in New 
York. 

Mr. Elliott. I do not dispute the nota- 
tions; but, Fraser did not attend the sale; 
he has made them outside. 

The Chairman. I would suggest that 
we print both statements in the record 
and compare them afterwards. These 
two statements may be marked "Exhibit 
A," submitted by Dr. Lucas, and "Ex- 
hibit B," offered by Mr. Elliott. 

The documents referred to are as fol- 
lows: 

"Exhibit A. 

"CM. Lampson & Co. exposed to sale by 
auction at the College Hill public sales- 
room on Friday, December 15, 1911, at 
2 o'clock precisely, the following goods, 
viz, 12,002 salted fur-seal skins, Alaska. 
Prompt, December 29, 1911. 

"The purchasers are particularly re- 
quested to have some one in attendance 
to superintend the counting, as no 
claim for deficiencies can be allowed 
after the goods have been counted and 
delivered from the warehouse." 



The genuine sales sheet of the London 
broker, given to committee. 

The Chairman. Where does this list 
that you have come from? 

Mr. Elliott. From Lampson's agent in 
New York. 

The Chairman. I would suggest that 
we print both statements in the record 
and compare them afterwards. These 
two statements may be marked "Exhibit 
A," submitted by Dr. Lucas, and "Ex- 
hibit B," offered by Mr. Elliott. 



The documents referred to are as fol- 
lows: 

"Exhibit B. 

"C. M. Lampson & Co. Exposed to sale 
by auction at the College Hill public 
sale room on Friday, December 15, 1911, 
at 2 o'clock precisely, the following 
goods, viz, 12,002 salted fur-seal skins, 
Alaska. Prompt, December 29, 1911. 

"The purchasers are particularly re- 
quested to have some one in attendance 
to superintend the counting, as no claim 
for deficiencies can be allowed after the 
goods have been counted and delivered 
from the warehouse." 



12,002 SKINS, SALTED FUR SEAL, ALASKA. 

[In cold storage at New Hibernia Wharf. Samples 
at C. M. Lampson & Co.'s warehouse, 64 Queen 
Street, E. C. At per skin, to advance Is. Buy- 
ers are requested to note that all skins are stamped 
"L A" on the right cheek.] 



12,002 SKINS, SALTED FUR SEAL, ALASKA. 



Lot No. 


Shil- 
lings. 


Lotl 


224 


Lot 2 


202 


Lot3 


206 


Lot 4 


206 


Lot 5 


206 


Lot 6 


206 


Lot 7 


174 


Lot8 


174 


Lot9 


172 


Lot 10 


172 


Lot 11 


172 


Lot 12 


172 


Lot 13 


172 


Lot 14 


172 


Lot 15 


172 


Lot 16 


172 


Lot 17 


172 


Lot 18 


170 


Lot 19 


170 


Lot 20 


170 


Lot 21 


170 


Lot 22 


168 


Lot 23 


168 


Lot 24 


130 


Lot 25 


128 



Number and kind. 



fl middling and small.. 

l98 smalls 

80 large pups 

do 

do 

do 

69 large pups. 

90 middling pups 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

do 

105 middling pups 

100 small pups 

do 



Weight. 



Lbs. oz. 
10 

8 4 

7 i 



5 13 



[In cold storage at New Hibernia Wharf, 
at C. M. Lampson & Co.'s warehouse, 64 Queen 
Street, E. C. At per skin, to advance Is. Buy- 
ers are requested to note that all skins are stamped 
" L A" on the right cheek.] 



Lot No. 


Shillings. 


Number and kind. 


Lotl 


224 

202 
206 
206 
206 
206 
174 
174 
172 
172 
172 
172 
172 
172 
172 
172 
172 
170 
170 
170 
170 
168 
168 
130 
128 


fl middling and 
< small. 


Lot 2 


(98 small. 
80 large pups. 
Do. 


Lot3 


Lot 4 


Do. 


Lot 5 


Do. 


Lot 6 


69 large pups. 
90 middling pups. 
Do. 


Lot7 


Lot 8 


Lot9 


Do. 


Lot 10 


Do. 


Lot 11... 


Do. 


Lot 12 


Do. 


Lot 13 


Do. 


Lot 14 


Do. 


Lot 15 


Do. 


Lot 16 


Do. 


Lot 17 


Do. 


Lot 18 


Do. 


Lot 19 


Do. 


Lot 20 


Do. 


Lot 21 


Do. 


Lot 22 


Do. 


Lot 23 


105 middling pups. 
100 small pups. 
Do. 


Lot 24 


Lot 25 







(Hearing No. 12, pp. 728, 729, May 16, 
1912.) 



* * * * 

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 731, 732, May 
1912.) 



16, 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



211 



Lucas declares that the size of 
the skin has nothing to do with its 
classification. 

Dr. Lucas. You are also doubtless fa- 
miliar with the fact that the classification 
of the seals in the sales has absolutely 
nothing to do with actual ages and sizes. 
(Hearing No. 12, p. 708, Mar. 16, 1912.) 



Lucas swears that the green 
skins weigh more than when 
salted. 

Dr. Lucas. For example, you will find 
large pups here whose skins weighed 7 
pounds 4 ounces, the size of either an aver- 
age 2-year-old or a small 3-year-old seal; 
middling paps weighing 6 pounds 4 ounces, 
the size of a 3-year old. And if these seal- 
skins follow the rule of other skins — and I 
have handled a great many hundreds of 
skins — they will weigh less at the London 
sales after being salted than they will 
weigh fresh on the islands, because when a 
skin is salted the salt takes the moisture 
out of it and it comes to the sale in a semi- 
dry condition. (Hearing No. 12, p. 708, 
May 16, 1912. 



But the London sales agent 
says that its size does determine 
it, by measurement so classed. 

TESTIMONY OP MR. ALFRED ERASER. 

(The witness was duly sworn by the 
chairman.) 

Mr. Fraser. Yes. I was in the fur 
business, being a member of the firm of 
CM. Lampson & Co. 

The Chairman. For how many years 
did you say you were connected with that 
company? 

Mr. Fraser. I was connected with 
them since 1865. 

The Chairman. What was your busi- 
ness as their representative? 

Mr. Fraser. I took care of their busi- 
ness in New York. 

The Chairman . If you will kindly send 
us a catalogue I will look it over and sub- 
mit it to the committee. Prof. Elliott, 
do you want to ask any question? 

Mr. Elliott. Just one question, not to 
criticise Mr. Fraser, because he has told 
the exact truth [reading]: 

"The London classification of skins is 
based upon the length of the skin, and 
then weight (p. 916, vol. 8, Proceedings of 
the Bering Sea Tribunal)." 

Mr. Fraser. That is so; I do not dis- 
pute that. (Hearing No. 1, pp. 29, 33, 
June 2, 1911.) 

Mr. Elliott. The London people knew 
nothing,Jand still know nothing, about the 
age of seals, and they cared notbing, about 
it. They were interested in the size and 
the quality. They ascertained and 
formed their idea of the skin's value pri- 
marily by its measurement, and, secondly, 
by its weight. The weight would vary. 
Sometimes more salt and blubber are used 
and sometimes less. But the measure- 
ments were reasonably steady and con- 
stant. They measure their sealskins. 
We weighed ours on the islands. (Hearing 
No. 1, p. 12, May 31, 1911.) 

The London authority declares 
that the salted skins are heaviest, 
and the island records confirm it. 

Mr. Elliott. I will go further, and sub- 
mit as Exhibit J this paper. I won't read 
all of this in regard to the British authority 
on Alaskan fur-seal classification and what 
he says, as compared with our tables; but 
I will read one word from a chief British 
authority in an official letter written De- 
cember 21, 1892, by Sir Curtis Lampson's 
sons to the British commissioners, Sir 
George Baden- Powell and Dr. George M. 
Dawson. Sir Curtis Lampson says: 

"We are unable to answer your inquiry 
as to in what class in the sales catalogue 
would be placed a skin classified on the 
islands as, say, a 7-pound skin, as we do not 



212 



FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Lucas weighed and measured 
no sealskins, because this work 
had been done: 



Mr. Elliott. Nowhere in your table is 
there a record of a "green" skin weight? 

Dr. Lucas. Not in my table. No; ex- 
cept the one I think of, one skin only. 
The weight had been very carefully taken 
by Government agents and others, and it 
was a part of the work we did not deem it 
necessary to take. 

"There is a large amount of evidence 
bearing on these facts collected by Messrs. 
Judge and Lembkey, and I have perfect 
faith in their observations from my per- 
sonal knowledge of the men." (F. A. 
Lucas to Hon. E. H. Townsend, Feb. 24, 
1912. Hearing No. 14, p. 948.) 

Mr. Elliott. I've got it right here. 
You can look over the London sales cata- 
logues of the Lampsons like this one for 20 
years, and you can find neither weight 
nor measurement. 

Dr. Lucas. Then, they don'tmeanany- 
thing. 

Mr. Elliott. They do "mean any- 
thing." How do you suppose these skins 
are classified? 

Dr. Lucas. By weight. 

Mr. Elliott. No, sir. How could they 
classify them by weight — get the size by 
weight? 

Dr. Lucas. Aren't you willing to say 
that they are classified by weight? 

Mr. Elliott. No; because Mr. Fraser 

.says, on pages 30 to 33 of hearing No. 1, 

that they are classified by measurement. 

(Hearing No. 12, pp. 726, 727, May 16, 

1912.) 



know whether the classification you men- 
tion refers to the skins as taken from the 
animals or after they have been cured and 
salted ready for shipment. The process of 
curing and salting must of necessity add 
to the weight. (See p. 916, Proceedings of 
the Tribunal of Arbitration, vol. 8, Paris, 
1893.)" (Hearing No. 1, p. 14, May 31, 
1912.) 

The London authority is con- 
firmed on the Seal Islands. 

[Official Journal, Government Agent in Charge Seal 
Islands, St. Pauls Island, Alaska.] 

Saturday, July 23, 1904. 
On July 18, 107 skins taken on Tolstoi 
were weighed and salted. To-day they 
were hauled out of the bench and re- 
weighed. At the time of killing they 
weighed 705 pounds, and on being taken 
out they weighed 759^ pounds, a gain in 
salting of 54^ pounds, or one-half pound 
per skin. (Entry made on p. 149 by 
W. T. Lembkey, Chief Special Agent in 
Charge Seal Islands.) 

But he has never seen the table 
of one of his associates which de- 
nies his claim that the skins are 
classified by weight : 

Mr. Elliott. How do you know that 
the weight determines the size? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the 
weight. 

Mr. Elliott. Does it? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the 
weight. 

Mr. Elliott. Are you sure of that? 

Dr. Lucas. Naturally, to a great extent 
it does. 

Mr. Elliott. Are you acquainted with 
the tables of salted weights published by 
one of your associates, of 275 skins, which 
give a complete denial to your statement? 

Dr. Lucas. I am not. 

Mr. Elliott. You have never seen the 
table of Mr. Judge? 

Dr. Lucas. I presume I have seen the 
table, but I never noticed it. (Hearing 
No. 12, p. 726, May 16, 1912.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



213 



Lucas says that the weights 
show that no yearling skins are 
taken: 

American Museum 

of Natural History, 
New York, February 18, 1912. 

Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on 
page 2168 of the Congressional Record 
for February 14, I take the liberty of say- 
ing that the weights of the sealskins 
(catches 1909 and 1910), as published by 
the Government agents and in the 
report of the London fur sales, show 
conclusively that there has been no sys- 
tematic killing of undersize fur seals — 
that probably none is under 2 years of 
age. 

As you doubtless are aware, the largest 
seals of any given year may be, and fre- 
quently are, larger than seals born the 
year previous, so that there is an overlap- 
ping of sizes and weights. 

I base the above statements on my own 
observations, on the reports of Mr. 
Judge and Mr. Lembkey, and on the state- 
ments published by Mr. Elliott in his 
report of 1873. I confess that I quote 
Mr. Elliott with some hesitancy, because, 
as I wrote the Hon. Mr. Sulzer, he 
does not know the difference between a 
2-year-old and a 3-year-old seal. My 
reason for this statement is that subse- 
quent to 1890 Mr. Elliott published a 
"field diagram," in which he includes 
certain seals marked "2-year-olds," or 
"nubiles." Two-year-old females do not 
occur on the rookeries and very few are 
on the islands in June. The bulk of 
them arrive in July and August after the 
rookery system has been broken up, as is 
well shown in photographs. The young- 
est seals in the harems are 3-year-olds. 
I am, faithfully yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Lucas swears that the weight 
of the skin determines its size: 

Mr. Elliott. Yes: * * * Now, Dr. 
Lucas, when you take the skin off of that 
yearling seal, and salt it down, how long 
is it? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have 
never measured a skin after salting. 

Mr. Elliott. You never measured it 
before salting, did you? 

Dr. Lucas. I never measured the skin 
before salting. 

Mr. Elliott. Neither before or after. 
Then how do you know that in the kill- 
ing up there they are not killing yearling 
seals? 



But cross-examination makes 
him admit that he does not know 
what the weights are: 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 948, 949, July 25, 
1912.) 

Mr. Elliott. Never mind the female. 
Did you measure the skin and weigh it? 

Dr* Lucas. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Nowhere in your table is 
there a record of a "green" skin weight? 

Dr. Lucas. Not in my table. No. 

Mr. Elliott. And your record stands, 
of course. 

Dr. Lucas. This record as printed 
stands. 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; I find no fault with 
that record, either. It is exactly as I 
published it nearly 40 years before. Now, 
Dr. Lucas, when you take the skin off of 
that yearling seal, and salt it down, how 
long is it? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. I have 
never measured a skin after salting. 

Mr. Elliott. You never measured it 
before salting, did you? 

Dr. Lucas. 1 never measured the skin 
before salting. 

Mr. Elliott. Neither before or after. 
Then how do you know that in the killing 
up there they are not killing yearling 
seals? 

Dr. Lucas. By the weight of the skins. 

Mr. Elliott. How do you know that 
the weight determines the size? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the 
weight. 

Mr. Elliott. Does it? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines the 
weight. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 725, 726, 
May 16, 1912.) 



Proof instantly produced that 
it does not: 

There are 134 skins thus listed above, 
every one of which is not to exceed 34£ 
inches long. If those small skins had all 
been properly skinned, no one of them 
would weigh more than 5 pounds green 
and three-fourths of them would not ex- 
ceed 4£ pounds. Yet we find that they 
all have been so loaded with blubber, 
when fresh skinned, that with the ex- 
ception of 18 skins, they are weighing as 
as much and even more than properly 
skinned 2-year old seal pelts do, and 
many of them weigh into the 3 year-old 
class. 



214 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Lucas. By the weight of the 



Dr. 

skins. 

Mr. Elliott. How do you know that 
the weight determines the size? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines 
weight. 

Mr. Elliott. Does it? 

Dr. Lucas. The size determines 
weight. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 725, 
May 16, 1912.) 

The following was contributed by Dr 
Lucas to the New York Times of Febru 
ary 23, 1912: 



the 



the 
726, 



As an instance of that falsification in 
those weights above listed, No. 4612 is 
32 inches long and is so blubbered that 
it weighs 8 pounds 4f ounces, and No. 
4244 is also only 32 inches long — same 
size— yet, not blubbered, weighs but 4 
pounds 3j ounces. 

These two small yearling skins show 
beyond dispute that no classification of 
these skins by weight can be sensibly or 
honestly made. • (Report Agents H. Com. 
on Exp. Dept. Commerce, Aug. 31, 1913, 
p. 107.) 



THE FUR SEAL HERD. 

"To the Editor op the New York 

Times: 

"Since my name appears in your edi- 
torial article on the fur seal question, 
may I have space to state my opinions? 

"Finally, the published figures of the 
London sales show conclusively that 
there has been no systematic killing of 
anything below the two-year olds, and 
not so very many of those. All reports to 
the contrary are absolutely false. 

"It should also be stated that the 
terms 'pups,' 'small pups,' and 'extra 
small pups' are dealers' terms and have 
nothing whatever to do with the actual 
ages of the seals. Also, that sealskins 
weighed in London, after being salted 
and half-way dried, weigh less than they 
do when freshly taken from the seals, as 
they are weighed at the islands. 

"F. A. Lucas, 
' ' Member of the Fur Seal Commis- 
sion of 1896 and 1897; 
"Member of the Advisory Board, 
Fur Seal Service." 

Lucas says that Merriam and 
himself have some " exact knowl- 
edge": 

American Museum op 

Natural History, 
New York, February 24, 1912. 

Dear Sir: Absence from the city has 
delayed my replying to your favor of Feb- 
ruary 21, which I am very glad to receive. 

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl- 
edge in regard to the killing of seals under 
2 years of age during the years 1909 and 
1910 must, like that of others who did not 
see the actual killing, be based on the 
published statement of their weights. In 
addition, however, I have my own expe- 
rience to aid in translating these weights. 
The advisory board recommended that no 
sealskins under 5 pounds in weight be 
taken, this being the average weight of a 
2-year-old skin. The weight given by El- 
liott in 1875 was (see postscript) 5 \ pounds, 
but this was based on an average of only 
10 skins. There is a bare possibility that 



But Merriam swears that he has 
no knowledge whatever : 



Mr. Elliott. Doctor, while you were 
on the island did you ascertain the length 
and weight of a yearling seal? 

Dr. Merriam. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you know anything 
about the length and the weight of a year- 
ling sealskin? 

Dr. Merriam. Nothing. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you make any meas- 
urements up there? 

Dr. Merriam. I do not remember off- 
hand. I examined a great many pup 
seals for sex. 

Mr. Elliott. You did not measure the 
yearlings, Doctor. 

Dr. Merriam. I measured or at least 
weighed some of the seals, but I do not 
remember offhand. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you published any 
record of it. 

Dr. Merriam. I think not. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



215 



these might be short 3-year-olds, but I 
will let the matter stand as stated. Ac- 
cording to the observations of Dr. Mer- 
riam and myself, there is about 20 per 
cent variation from the average either 
way, so that some 2-year-old sealskins 
would weigh but 4 pounds and others 
would weigh (i pounds. 

Pardon me for troubling you with a 
number of explanatory details, but I wish 
above all things to make it clear that I am 
not speaking by hearsay, or making state- 
ments without foundation, but that I am 
writing of matters with which I have di- 
rect acquaintance. 

Faithfully, yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
( 'om m.ittee on the Library, 

House of Representatives. 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, 'July 25, 
1912.) 

Lucas swears that he believes 
54 pounds is the "good average" 
of a 2-year-old skin. 

Dr. Lucas. In regard to the sizes and 
ages of killable seals, Dr. Evermann has 
pointed out in his admirable resume" that 
there is no law against the killing of male 
seals of any age. There have been regu- 
lations against it, but all I can say is that 
no yearlings have been systematically 
killed. I took Mr. Elliott's figures of 
1873 as a good average. He cites the 
weight of 2-year-old skins as 54 pounds. 
I agree with him there. I think that is a 
good average. I might say that I have 
not weighed any sealskins myself. (Hear- 
ing No. 12, p. 708, May 16, 1912.) 



Lucas records the appearance 
of 2-year-old cows, or nubiles, on 
the breeding grounds at the height 
of the breeding season July 14-20, 
1897: 



July 14, 1897. 
I made a count of Ardiguen this morn- 
ing with Mr. Macoun. * * * 

Three or four bulls with 2-year-old cows 
were seen on Zapadine this afternoon. 
(F. A. Lucas.) 

July 20, 1897. 
There is nothing in the condition of the 
harems to warrant the supposition that the 
3-year-old cows are the cause of the height 
of the season on the rookeries. It is evi- 
dent also that the 2-year-olds are already 



Mr. Elliott. No, and therefore you 
made no re- ord that we could get hold of 
to-day? 

Dr. Merriam. 1 doubt if I measured 
any of the 2-year-old seals. 

Mr. Elliott. 1 have never been able to 
find it. Therefore, you have no record of 
the length and weight of a yearling seal? 

Dr. Merriam. I think 1 have none. I 
think I have weights and measurements 
of p^ps, but not of vearling seals. (Hear- 
ing No. 11, p. (199, May 4, 1912.) 



But Lucas recommends, No- 
vember 23, 1909, a lower weight, 5 
pounds, for a 2-year-old skin. 

Mr. Patton. These recommendations 
were made to your bureau? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes. 

Mr. Patton. And were not made by 
you at all? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir. 

Mr. Patton. But were made by this 
advisory board? 

Mr. Bowers. Yes, sir. [Reading:] 

"It is recommended that, for the pres- 
ent, no fur-seal skin weighing more than 
8^ pounds or less than 5 pounds shall be 
taken, and that not more than 95 per cent 
of the 3-year-old male seals be killed in 
any one year." (Hearing No. 2, p. Ill, 
June 9, 1911.) 

Lucas denies the appearance of 
2-year-old cows, or nubiles, on 
the breeding grounds at the time 
of breeding 3 and 4 year olds are 
there. They are not there at the 
breeding season, in July: 

American Museum of 

Natural History, 
New York, February 18, 1912. 
Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on 
page 2168 of the Congressional Record for 
February 14, I take the liberty of saying 
that as to the question of 2-year-old fe- 
males not occurring on the rookeries, I 
may say that the yearlings and the 2-year- 
olds come to the islands late. Pardon me 
for saying that this statement of mine is 
borne out by the observations of all nat- 
uralists who have been on the Pribilof 
Islands. 



216 



PUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



present in considerable numbers. It 
seems more likely that the advent of these 
classes of seals depends upon their ages, 
the earlier coming into heat earlier as 
2-year olds, and bearing their pups earlier 
as 3-year-olds. 

(F. A. Lucas and Geo. A. Clark.) 
(Fur Seal Investigations, part 2, 1898, 
pp. 557, 566.) 



Lucas l says that 



the virgin or 
2-year-old cows do not come on 
the breeding rookeries. 

American Museum of 
Natural History, 
New York, February 18, 1912. 
Dear Sir: Noticing your remark on 
page 2168 of the Congressional Record for 
February 14, I take the liberty of saying 
that the weights of the sealskins (catches 
1909 and 1910), as published by the Gov- 

i i)r. Evermann. Dr. David Starr Jordan. His 
associate, whose name I am now reading: "Dr. F. 
A. Lucas, director of the American Museum of 
Natural History, New York City, member of the 
fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897, when he spent 
about four months on the Seal Islands, devoting the 
entire time to a study of the rookeries and hauling 
grounds. Dr. Lucas is one of the keenest and most 
conservative of American zoologists." 



I confess that I quote Mr. Elliott with 
some hesitancy, because, as I wrote the 
honorable Mr. Sulzer, he does not know 
the difference between a 2-year-old and 
a 3-year-old seal. My reason for this 
statement is that subsequent to 1890 Mr. 
Elliott published a "field diagram," in 
which he includes certain seals marked 
"2-year-olds," or "nubiles." Two-year- 
old females do not occur on the rookeries 
and very few are on the islands in June. 
The bulk of them arrive in July and 
August after the rookery system has been 
broken up, as is well shown in photo- 
graphs. The youngest seals in the 
harems are 3-year-olds. 

I am, faithfully yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
\, House of Representatives, 

n Washington, D. C. 

[Note. — This letter confessing the 
strange "scientific" ignorance of the 
writer of the fact that those nubiles do 
appear on the breeding rookeries when 
the breeding season is not broken up, and 
only appear then, is a sad revelation of 
nonsense on the part of Lucas as an inves- 
tigator. No breeding of any kind takes 
place after that date or before, viz, July 
4-25 annually, to any noteworthy extent; 
none whatever after August 1. — ■ 
H. W. E.] 

But * Jordan finds them there 
just as Elliott found and described 
them in 1872-1874. 

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE GOVERNMENT 

agent's OFFICE. 

St. Paul Island, Alaska, 

Friday, July 31, 1896. 
Dr. Jordan found two 2-year-old virgin 
seal cows on the Reef Rookery, which he 
killed for scientific research. 

1 Dr. fevermann (reading): "Dr. David Starr 
Jordan, president of Stanford University, chairman 
of the fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897, and 
who, in company with his associates, spent the 
seasons of those two years on our Seal Islands and 
on the Russian islands, visiting every rookery and 
every hauling ground and studying the fur seal from 
every important point of view. Besides spending 
several months actually on the islands, he spent 
many more months in collating and studying the 
data resulting from his own observations and those 
of his associates and in a study of the literature of the 
subject. 

"Mr. George A. Clark, of Stanford University, sec- 
retary to the fur-seal commissions of 1896 and 1897 and 
special investigator on the Seal Islands during the 
entire season of 1909. Mr. Clark has had a wider 
experience in enumerating the seal herd than any 
other man and is one of the most careful observers 
who has ever visited the Seal Sslands." 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



217 



eminent agents and in the report of the 
London fur sales, show conclusively that 
there has heen no systematic killing of 
undersize fur seals — that probably none 
is under 2 years of age. 

As you doubtless are aware, the largest 
seals of any given year may be, and fre- 
quently are. larger than seals born the 
year previous, so that there is' an overlap- 
ping of sizes and weights. 

I base the above statements on my own 
observations, on the reports of Mr. Judge 
and Mr. Lembkey, and on the statements 
published by Mr. Elliott in his report of 
1873. I confess that I quote Mr. Elliott 
with some hesitancy, because, as I wrote 
the honorable Mr. Sulzer, he does not 
know the difference between a 2-year-old 
and a 3-year-old seal. My reason for this 
statement is that subsequent to 1890 
Mr. Elliott published a "field diagram," 
in which he includes certain seals marked 
"2-year-olds," or "nubiles." Two-year- 
old females do not occur on the rookeries 
and very few are on the islands in June. 
The bulk of them arrive in July and 
August after the rookery system has been 
broken up, as is well shown in photo- 
graphs. The youngest seals in the harems 
are 3-year-olds. 

I am, faithfully, yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C. 

[Note. — This letter confessing the 
strange "scientific" ignorance of the 
writer of the fact that those nubiles do 
appear on the breeding rookeries when 
the breeding season is not broken up, 
and only appear then, is a sad revelation 
of nonsense on the part of Lucas as an 
investigator. No breeding of any kind 
takes place after that date or before, viz, 
July 4-25 annually, to any noteworthy 
extent; none whatever after August 1.— 
H. W. E.] 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 948. 949. July 25, 
1912.) 



St. Paul Island, 

July 14, 1912. 
Gorbatch: 

There are six little virgin cows in the 
two large harems under Rock 12. 

(U. S. typed notes of Geo. A. Clark, p. 
256.) 



218 



EUE-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Lucas says that the 2-year-old 
cows do not come out on the 
rookeries : 

American Museum 

op Natural History, 
New York, February 24, 1912. 

Dear Sir: Absence from the city has 
delayed my replying to your favor of 
February 21, which I am very glad to 
receive. 

Let me say, first, that my exact knowl- 
edge in regard to the killing of seals under 
2 years of age during the years 1909 and 
1910 must, like that of others who did not 
see the actual killing, be based on the 
published statement of their weights. 

As to the question of 2-year-old females 
not occurring on the rookeries, I may say 
that the yearlings and the 2-year-olds 
come to the islands late. Pardon me for 
saying that this statement of mine is borne 
out by the observations of all naturalists 
who have been on the Pribilof Islands. 
My report on the Breeding Habits of the 
Pribilof Fur Seal was based on the obser- 
vations of our entire party during the two 
seasons there, and are supported by the 
English naturalists D'Arcy W. Thompson 
and G. E. H. Barrett Hamilton. We 
found, as I have stated, that the 2-year- 
old female seals are not in the rookeries; 
that the majority of them appear on the 
islands after the 1st of August, and that 
very few are there before the middle of 
July. This was one of the distinct addi- 
tions that we were able to make to the 
natural history of the fur seal, and it 
helped out in a matter of which Mr. 
Elliott, as stated in his 1873 report, was 
confessedly ignorant. 

If you would be good enough to read the 
little items on pages 44, 47, and 53 of my 
report on the Breeding Habits of the 
Pribilof Fur Seals, I will be much obliged, 
and I trust that you will kindly take the 
necessary time to do so. I sent Mr. Flood 
my last available copy of this report, but 
it is included in part 3, Report of the Fur 
Seal Investigations for 1896 and 1897, 
which it will be easy for you to have 
brought to you. My other copies are 
packed away in boxes, but if I can un- 
earth one I shall be most happy to do so. 

Pardon me for troubling you with a 
number of explanatory details, but I wish 
above all things to make it clear that I am 
not speaking by hearsay, or making state- 
ments without foundation, but that I am 
■writing of matters with which I have a 
direct acquaintance. 

Faithfully, yours, 

F. A. Lucas. 

Hon. Edward W. Townsend, 
Committee on the Library, 
House of Representatives. 

(Hearing No. 14, pp. 947, 948, July 25, 
1912.) 



But Jordan finds them there just 
where Elliott said they were in 
1872-1890: 1 

official journal of the government 
agent's office. 
St. Pauls Island, Alaska, 

Saturday, August 1, 1896. 
Dr. Jordan assisted by the natives drove 
up three small harems from Garbotch 
Rookery, and upon investigation found 
that there were a number of 2-year-old 
virgin cows among them. 

1 It must be borne in mind that perhaps ten or 
twelve per cent of the entire number of breeding 
females were yearlings last season, and come up onto 
these breeding grounds now as virgins, for the first 
time during this season — as two-year-old cows. 
They, of course, bear no young. (Monograph of the 
Seal Islands, 1872-82; Elliott, p. 50. Spl. Bulletin, 
176: U. S. Fish Commission, 1882.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



219 



Lucas says that if the seals are 
not killed down as young males 
they will grow up to "destroy the 
mothers and pups." 

The following was contributed by Dr. 
Lucas to the New York Times of Febru- 
ary 23, 1912: 

"the fur seal herd. 

"To the Editor op the New York 

Times: 

"Since my name appears in your editor- 
ial article on the fur seal question, may I 
have space to state my opinions? My 
attitude in regard to the 'trampled pup ' 
question and the damage done by unnec- 
essary males has been conservative, as 
you will see by the following quotations 
from my report of 1898 on the 'Causes of 
Mortality Among Seals,' based on obser- 
vations of 1896 and 1897: 

" ' Rough handling by the males may be 
set down as the most evident known cause 
of death among the females, and the 
greater the proportion of bulls the greater 
the number of deaths, so that in a state 
of nature the superabundance of bulls 
must probably be an important factor, 
if not the chief factor, in checking the 
increase of the fur seals. As the propor- 
tion of the sexes at birth is equal, and as 
at least 30 males are born where one is 
needed, there must in olden times have 
been a prodigious amount of fighting and 
a mighty turmoil on the breeding grounds, 
with a consequent destruction of mothers 
and pups. There were 42 dead cows on 
Reef rookery in 1897, and if there was 
such a visible loss with only a moderate 
surplus of males what must have taken 
place before any males were killed by 
man? It is evident that if many cows are 
killed outright, many more must be badly 
injured and eventually die, an inference 
made in discussing the mortality among 
the pups, where it was suggested that the 
loss of these injured females at sea prob- 
ably accounted for much of the early 
starvation of the young.' " (P. 91.) 

(Hearing No. 10, p. 600, Apr. 20, 1912.) 

The "science" of Dr. Lucas: 

Mr. McGillicuddy. What is your esti- 
mate as to the required number of males 
to a specified number of females? 

Dr. Lucas. May I refer to my report? 
I went into the matter very carefully in 
this. We found that the average number 
of seals in a harem in 1896 and 1897 was 
about 35. That was at a time when the 
number of surplus bulls was very large. 
There was a very large number of useless 
bulls who could get no cows, who had been 
crowded out. Thirty-five was the mini- 
mum average for a harem, and 50 or 60 
would be what might be called a good 



But his associate, Lembkey, in 
whom he has "perfect faith," de- 
clares that if not so killed, they 
"will increase again to between 
four and five millions." 



Mr. Lembkey. In 1890 conservative 
estimates placed the number on the Prib- 
ilof Islands between four and five millions. 
To-day there are probably not over 
180,000 in the entire herd. 

Mr. Williams (of Mississippi). At the 
end of 18 or 19 years, if no killing at all, 
you think they would go back to between 
four and five millions? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have no doubt they 
would. (Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and 
Means Committee, Jan. 25, 1907; p. 66, 
notes; M.S. typed.) 

Mr. Lembkey. * * * So, that 
shows that in 15 years this (Robbens Reef) 
herd had rehabilitated itself, and I sup- 
pose that if the Pribilof herd were left 
alone, immune from land killing as well 
as sea killing, it would do the same thing. 
(Hearing on Fur Seals, Ways and Means 
Committee, Jan. 25, 1907, House of Rep- 
resentatives; p. 62, notes M.S. typed.) 



Its error exposed : 

Mr. Elliott. This assumption by Jordan, 
Lucas, and the rest of that ' ' science " crowd 
in the Bureau of Fisheries that the breed- 
ing of that seal life is precisely as so many 
cattle, sheep, or horses — that only a very 
small per cent of the male life is needed, 
is simply baseless — the difference is wide, 
and those "scientists" lack common sense 
in not observing it. 

Cattle, sheep, and horses breed during 
every month of the year; fur seals breed 
during only 1 month of the year, and 
mostly in only 10 or 15 days of that month, 
from July 10 to 20, annually. 



220 



PUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



working proportion. So long as the 
harems do not on the average exceed this 
there is no reason to suppose that the 
number of bulls is too small. One bull to 
50 or 60 cows is not too high an average, 
but in 1896 and 1897 there was 1 bull on 
the average to every 35 cows. There was 
in one case over 100, but the bull could 
not hold them, and a good many got away. 
Some of the harems also were very small. 
I checked that off a little by getting the 
opinion of breeders as to what might be 
the relative number under control of the 
animals. One estimate is that 1 ram is 
sufficient for 50 ewes and that 1 bull is 
sufficient for 25 cattle. When running at 
large 1 stallion is sufficient for 20 to 40 
mares, but when under control the num- 
ber may be much larger, well on toward 
100. And that is in a state of domestica- 
tion where polygamy is artificial. Here 
we have polygamy brought about by nat- 
ural conditions and where there is no 
danger of overestimating the number of 
females to males. (Hearing No. 12, p. 709, 
May 16, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept, C. 
and L.) 

Lucas swears that he did not 
advise Osborn to write a foolish 
letter: 

Mr. Elliott. That is right? The other 
gentleman, Mr. Townsend, does. Did 
you inspire the letter which Henry Fair- 
field Osborn, president of the American 
Museum of Natural History, wrote to 
Chairman William Sulzer? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. Kindly note, 
Mr. Elliott asked if I inspired that letter. 

The Chairman. Do you know any- 
thing about it? 

Dr. Lucas. Only after it was written. 

The Chairman. Were you in consulta- 
tion about it with anyone? 

Dr. Lucas. No; my advice was not 
asked . 



How long would a herd of cattle hold its 
numbers if all the breeding was put into 
only 10 days of every year — from July 10 
to 20 — and only 1 bull living to serve 100 
cows? What would 1 ram do with 100 
ewes? What would a stallion do with 100 
mares? What, if only half that number to 
serve? 

Why that service would fail ; and at the 
best, would be feeble to impotent after 
a short day or two of demand. (H. W. 
Elliott to Secretary Redfield, May 4, 
1913, Dept, of Commerce Bldg.) 



But Osborn says Lucas gave 
him the advice upon which the 
foolish letter rests : 

Mr. Elliott (reading): 

"The American Museum of 
"Natural History, 
"Office of the President, 
"New York, January 22, 1912. 
"Dear Sir: As president of the Amer- 
ican Museum of Natural History, I have 
been securing the advice of the expert 
zoologists of this institution, especially of 
Dr. Frederic A. Lucas, who is a trained 
authority on the fur-seal question. I de- 
sire to protest against the proposed amend- 
ment to the fur-seal bill (drafted by the 
State Department), which amendment 
provides a 15-year closed season on male 
seals. This amendment, should it be- 
come law, would exterminate the great 
seal herd of the United States, and is 
founded upon ignorance of the first prin- 
ciples of breeding under natural condi- 
tions and of the artificial conditions 
which have been brought about on the 
islands through prolonged and fateful 
pelagic sealing. 

"I am, very respectfully, 

"Henry Fairfield Osborn, 

" President. 
"Hon. William Sulzer, 

" Chairman House Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, House of Rep- 

reseniatives , Washington, D. C. 

' ' I am strongly in favor of the bill itself . ' ' 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



221 



Lucas claims that he first dis- 
covered the hookworm cause of 
pup's death. 

Mr. Elliott. Isn't it true, Doctor, that 
it was through C. W. Stiles that the hook- 
worm was discovered? 

Dr. Lucas. No. 

Mr. Elliott. Didn't he first call your 
attention to that? 

Dr. Lucas. No; I called his attention 
to it. (Hearing No. 12, p. 720, May 16, 
1912.) 



Now, how did he get the idea that they 
would be exterminated after he had con- 
ferred with your scientific acumen? 

Dr. Lucas. Men may confer, you know, 
and do something entirely different. 

Mr. Elliott. How did he get that im- 
pression, if not from you? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. You will 
find all my publications entirely different 
from that. 

Mr. Elliott. So you will not be re- 
sponsible for what Dr. Osborn says? 

Dr. Lucas. Not in this case; certainly 
not. 

But, pinned down, he admits 
that Stiles had told him first. 



Dr. Lucas. * * * Mr. Chairman, 
may I makea statement right here? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Dr. Lucas. This will be the best an- 
swer I can possibly make. In 1896, as you 
may remember, I stated we penned up a 
pup and allowed it to die; to starve to 
death. I took it with me to St. George 
Island and let it lie out there overnight 
and dissected it, noting carefully the con- 
dition of the organs, so that we could say 
what were the conditions of the organs 
after starvation. In examining this pup 
I found two or three small worms in the 
intestines. Now, to find worms in the 
intestines of a young animal struck me 
as a very curious circumstance, so I pre- 
served them carefully and submitted 
them to Dr. Stiles. In 1897, before I went 
up on the islands, Dr. Stiles brought those 
to me and said that they were Fncinaria, 
a very dangerous parasite, and under suit- 
able conditions it might be the source of 
a great death rate among the young seals. 
Acting on the advice of Dr. Stiles I looked 
very carefully for this worm and found it. 
I have a record of the first pup actually 
found to have died from Uncinaria. 

Mr. Elliott. So Dr. Stiles really did 
advise you of the direct cause of death 
of these seals? 

Dr. Lucas. No; he said it was possible. 

Mr. Elliott. And then you found it 
to be true? 

Dr. Lucas. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. So Dr. Stiles deserves the 
credit for having found it? 

Dr. Lucas. He deserves the credit for 
having made a prediction that came true. 
(Hearing No. 12, p. 721, May 16, 1912.) 



222 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Lucas swears pups starve be- 
cause bulls kill their mothers. 



Mr. McGuire. Now, Doctor, you speak 
of a certain mortality on account of the 
starving of the young. This starvation 
may be caused by the loss of the mother 
cow having been killed by the males. 
That is one cause? 

Dr. Lucas. Yes. (Hearing No. 12, p. 
711, May 16, 1912.) 



Lucas tries to deny his "dis- 
co very" of the "fact" that the 
fur seal naturally tramples its own 
young to death. 

The Chairman. About how many 
days? 

Dr. Lucas. About 50 days in 1896, al- 
lowing about 9 days' time spent at sea 
going to and from one island to another. 

Mr. Elliott. In 1897 how many days 
were you on the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. About 42 days. 

Mr. Elliott. On the Islands? 

Dr. Lucas. That is about the number. 
I have the exact data right here. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, Dr. Lucas, did you 
see up there a pup trampled to death by 
a bull? 

Dr. Lucas. No. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you, in 1897, exhibit 
a series of trampled pups to the biological 
society here in Washington and say that 
11,000 had been trampled to death by 
bulls? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you not address the 
society on January 4, 1897, on the subject 
of tra*mpled pups? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Didn't you exhibit a 
series of pups in alcohol? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. Didn't you call attention 
to the state of these 11,000 pups, which 
you stated on the platform during the 



Elliott swears that Lucas never 
saw a bull kill a cow, that Lucas 
fakes the statement. 

Mr. Elliott. Right on that point, Mr. 
Chairman, not one of these scientists — 
Dr. Jordan, George A. Clark, Merriam, 
Stejneger, Lucas, or Townsend — have 
published a line in their reports upon that 
life in which they describe the "fighting 
of bulls so as to tear the cows to pieces and 
trample their pups to death." Now, 
their sole argument to-day, that they 
brought over to the Senate, is that if we 
let these young seals grow up in a closed 
season they will go to fighting and will 
' ' tear the cows to pieces and trample the 
pups to death." It is a fake story; it is 
contrary to the natural law that governs 
them; and I am not going to quietly sit 
here and let it even be hinted at that I 
am an ' ' enemy " of the fur seals because I 
believe in the natural laws of their wild 
life governing them being freed from the 
checks put upon them by half-baked 
naturalists. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 954, 
955, July 30, 1912.) 

But his memory is refreshed, 
and he does recall it. 



Mr. Elliott. What did you talk about? 

Dr. Lucas. Causes of mortality among 
seal pups. 

Mr. Elliott. Didn't you say it was due 
to trampling? 

Dr. Lucas. No. 

Mr. Elliott. The record of your report 
of 1896 denies it. 

Dr. Lucas. Find it. 

Mr. Elliott. The preliminary report 
of 1896 — "Cause of destruction of pups is 
chiefly due to trampling by males." 
You signed that with Dr. Jordan, didn't 
you? 

Dr. Lucas. I think I did not sign that 
report. That report was made by Dr. 
Jordan. 

Mr. Elliott. Would there be a report 
by Dr. Jordan or any other member of 
the board that is not sent to you to sign? 

Dr. Lucas. Yes. Dr. Jordan, as head 
of the commission, took the combined 
reports of the various members of the 
commission and drew up the preliminary 
report. 

Mr. Elliott. You are associated with 
him in that preliminary report of 1896, 
aren't you? You don't deny it, do you? 

Dr. Lucas Deny what? 

Mr. Elliott. The association and quo- 
tation by Dr. Jordan of you? 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



223 



course of your remarks had been trampled 
to death? 

Dr. Lucas. I did not. 

Mr. Elliott. After you had read your 
paper on this subject of trampled pups, 
didn't Dr. Merriam rise and say he 
agreed with you? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not recall. I do not 
have the minutes of that meeting. 

Mr. Elliott. Then didn't Mr. C. H. 
Townsend rise and say that some of the 
things he had missed, but he agreed with 
you? 

Dr. Lucas. I recall the meeting. 

Mr. Elliott. It is coming back to you 
now. Didn't Mr. True — this was Janu- 
ary 4, 1897, at Cosmos Hall— didn't Mr. 
True arise and say that he had failed to 
notice these trampled pups? 

Dr. Lucas. I do not know. 

Mr. Elliott. Didn't Dr. Stejneger also 
rise and say that he was considerably 
embarrassed but that he had no reason 
to doubt your discovery of trampled pups? 

Dr. Lucas. Dr. Stejneger remarked 
that he doubted it. 

Mr. Elliott. Now, it is coming back to 
you that you did address them on the 
subject of trampled pups? 

Dr. Lucas. No; causes of mortality 
among seal pups. 

Mr. Elliott. Is that in answer to my 
question? 

Dr. Lucas. It is. (Hearing No. 12, 
p. 719, May 16, 1912.) 

Lucas, "scientist," would not 
stop killing, "for the good of the 
herd." 

Mr. McGuire. Assuming that pelagic 
sealing has been stopped, would you sus- 
pend killing on the islands? 

Dr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Mr. McGuire. What would you do? 

Dr. Lucas. I should recommend, as I 
think I have done elsewhere, that the 
first year a less number of seals be taken 
than has been taken, in order to provide 
sufficient males for the females spared by 
pelagic sealing. If we killed 12,000 seals 
last year, I would say, do not kill but 
10,000 this year, to make sure of having a 
sufficient amount. I believe in taking 
no chances and leaving no loophole for 
criticism. That would be of course a pre- 
cautionary measure. 

The cessation of killing on land would 
release an undue number of males that 
would do no good, that would simply dis- 
turb the rookeries and be a dead loss comr 
mercially. (Hearing No. 12, pp. 712, 713, 
May 16, 1912.) 



Dr. Lucas. I didn't know that he 
quoted me. I haven't that document by 
me. Have you the document? 

Mr. Elliott. I don't need it. You 
don't deny its existence, do you? 

Dr. Lucas. I know there is such a 
report. 

Mr. Elliott. You know there is a re- 
port of some 46 pages with your name 
associated with Dr. Jordan as one of the 
distinguished scientists who had made 
this close study of the seals that summer. 
Now, in 1897, you discovered those pups 
were not trampled to death, didn't you? 

Dr. Lucas. The greater part of them. 
Yes ; we revised our causes of the previous 
year. 

Mr. Elliott. Who revised them? 

Dr. Lucas. I did most of it, because I 
was the one on whom devolved this 
report on the causes of mortalitv. (Hear- 
ing No. 12, p. 720, May 16, 1912.) 



Liebes, lessee, would not stop 
killing - , "for the good of the 
herd." 

The Chairman. Have you any idea or 
general knowledge of about how many 
seals there are in the herd now? 

Mr. Liebes. No, sir; I have no knowl- 
edge. 

The Chairman. The business is almost 
destroyed, is it not, Mr. Liebes? 

Mr. Liebes. Well, not necessarily so. 
If they are allowed to recuperate, they 
will be all right. They will be able to 
take seals each year, and I certainly think 
that is the only way to do. This idea of 
shutting down for a number of years is un- 
necessary and absolute rot. You have 
got to run your seal herd like you would 
run a stock range ; it has got to be left to 
people who understand the business, and 
in the discretion of the officers in charge, 
men of ability, if you have confidence in 
them, and from what I have seen of the 
Department of Fisheries they certainly 
have the ability, and the people around 
the islands certainly understand their 
business. They are good, conscientious 
people. If such people run the thing 
and take the surplus males each year, it 
will be all right. It is absolutely essen- 
tial that it should be run like a stock farm 



224 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Lucas says that he did not ad- 
vise a renewal of the lease. 



The Chairman. Would you have con- 
sidered it would be better to lease the 
islands for another 20-year term? 

Dr. Lucas. No, I would not, Mr. Chair- 
man. The part in regard to re-leasing it 
I should deem objectionable, as you will 
see by the resolution adopted by the ad- 
visory board at its meeting. 
■ The Chairman. I wish that resolution 
could be produced. 

Dr. Lucas. It is in the record. 

Mr. Patton. In the doctor's evidence 
before he said that he believed it would 
be better for the Government to have con- 
trol, and control the killing there under 
the present system. 

Mr. Elliott. The Government has 
always had perfect control over the killing 
on those islands since 1870. 

Mr. Patton. The Government does the 
killing itself, where it was done by leasing 
companies before. 

Mr. Elliott. This letter says they 
don't want it done. 

Mr. McGuire. I don't so understand 
it, but the letter is the best evidence. 

The Chairman. The letter will speak 
for itself. (Hearing No. 12, p. 725, May 
16, 1912.) 



The Chairman. Do you think male 
seals should be killed that are less than 2 
years old? 

Mr. Liebes. I do not think there is any 
rule about it at all; it is a question of run- 
ning it right. (Hearing No. 13, pp. 877, 
878, June 20, 1912.) 

But the Bureau of Fisheries 
officially quotes him as recom- 
mending a renewal of the lease. 

Mr. Elliott. On page 157, hearing No. 
3, July 6, 1911, is a letter from the Bureau 
of Fisheries dated December 16, 1909, 
signed by Barton W. Evermann. It 
urges Fish Commissioner Bowers to send 
agents to New York and educate certain 
people and induce them to agree to the 
bureau's idea of renewing the lease of the 
seal islands and preventing any cessation 
of the killing thereon. Now, in this let- 
ter, which I will put into the hearing to- 
day as Exhibit No. 6, appears the follow- 
ing statement : 

Department of 
Commerce and Labor, 
Bureau of Fisheries, 
Washington, December 16, 1909. 
The Commissioner: 

The Washington Star of December 10 
last announced that the Campfire Club of 
New York had inaugurated a campaign 
to save the fur-seal herd through legisla- 
tion designed to prevent the re-leasing of 
the sealing right, the cessation of killing 
on the islands for 10 years except for na- 
tives' food, and to secure the opening of 
negotiations with Great Britain to revise 
the regulations of the Paris tribunal . As 
the result of this movement, on Decem- 
ber 7 three resolutions were introduced by 
Senator Dixon, of Montana, one of which 
embodies the provisions before mentioned, 
the other two calling for publications of 
the fur-seal correspondence and reports 
since 1904. 

As the object of this movement is at 
variance with the program of this bureau 
and of the recommendations of the ad- 
visory fur-seal board, notably in the plan 
to prevent killing and V~e renewal of the 
seal island lease, tie advisability is sug- 
gested of having Messrs. Townsend, Lucas, 
and Stanley-Brown use their influence 
with such members of the Campfire Club 
as they may be acquainted with, with the 
object of correctly informing- th e club as 
to the exact present status of tl~e seal 
question and of securing its cooperation to 
effect the adoption of the measures advo- 
cated by this bureau. 

The attached letter is prepared, having 
in view the object stated. 

Barton W. Evermann. 

(Hearing No. 12, p. 724, May 16, 1912.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



225 



Lucas admits that lie did want 
a new lease made on the Russian 
plan . 

Dr. Lucas. The cessation of killing on 
land would release an undue number of 
males that would do no good,, that would 
simply disturb the rookeries and be a 
dead loss commercially. Government 
control has always seemed to us the best 
method, as it has proven on the Russian 
islands, where the Government has the 
absolute power to fix the number and 
make a closed season at any time it wishes. 

This recommendation was unanimously 
agreed to by the advisory board, fur-seal 
service (Dr. David Starr Jordan, chair- 
man; Dr. Leonard Stejneger, Dr. Frederic 
A. Lucas, Mr. Edwin W. Sims, Dr. 
Charles H. Townsend), the fur-seal board 
(Dr. Barton Warren Evermann, chairman; 
Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, and Mr. Millard 
C. Marsh), the Commissioner of Fisheries 
(Hon. George M. Bowers), the Deputy 
Commissioner of Fisheries (Dr. Hugh M. 
Smith), assistant fur-seal agent (H. D. 
Chichester), and special scientific expert 
(Mr. George A. Clark). (Hearing No. 12, 
p. 713, May 16, 1912.) 



But Elliott shows the com- 
mittee that such a lease adds to 
gain of lessees at public cost and 
loss. 

Mr. Elliott. That will not be neces- 
sary; I will just pass on. The terms of 
this lease, which he proposed, increased 
ihe profits of the lessee and added to the 
cost of the Government. 

The lessees are relieved of the present 
cos! to them of a great many things — 
schools, doctors — their entire plant is 
purchased: they pay no more taxes; all 
cosls are taken from them; and yet they 
are to get all of the skins taken for the 
same cost that they did in the old lease. 

Dr. Evermann. That is not correct. 

The Chairman. The lease will speak 
for itself. 

Mr. Elliott. The lease speaks to that 
effect, because there has- never been an 
hour since the islands have been leased 
that the Government has not had absolute 
control over the lessees and the killing. 
All this twaddle about the "Government 
getting control of the killing" is mere 
dust and verbiage; there has never been 
an hour since the first lease was made in 
1870 when an officer of the Government 
up there has not had the power to stop the 
killing down to a single seal, and hold it 
there — what more power could you have 
under any "new lease," or any such con- 
dition? I exercised that power in 1890, 
and no man dare dispute it and does not 
dispute it to this day. 

The Chairman. Why can it not be 
disputed? 

Mr. Elliott. Because no man has set 
aside my findings of fact that summer; 
they were stopped ; and nobody since has 
attempted to interfere with it, and no 
Secretary of the Treasury has ever said I 
did wrong. Over at Paris, in 1893, our 
agents said to the tribunal that my action 
in 1890 was a good thing, and they pa- 
raded there with great satisfaction the 
fact that our Government had stopped 
this slaughter on the islands to save that 
life, and they wanted Great Britain to 
intervene to stop it in the sea on their side. 
(Hearing No. 14. p. 993, July 29, 1912.) 



21588—13- 



-15 



226 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



VI. 

The sworn statements of W. I. Lembkey; chief special agent, in charge of the seal islands 
of Alaska, who is one of the experts cited to the United States Senate Committee on 
Conservation of National Resources, January 14, 1911, and to the House Committee 
on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and Labor, July 9, 1911, by Secretary 
Charles Nagel as his authority for killing seals in violation of law and regulations, 
to wit: 

Mr. Cable. Give the names of the members of the advisory board. 

Mr. Bowers. The members of the fur-seal board and of the advisory board, fur- 
seal service, are as follows : 

Fur-Seal Board, 

Bureau op Fisheries. 

In the Bureau of Fisheries, general matters regarding the fur seals are considered by 
a fur-seal board, consisting of the following: 

Dr. Barton Warren Evermann (chairman), who is chief of the Alaska Fisheries 
Service and who has been in Alaska a number of times. He was a member of the 
fur-seal commission of 1892, when he spent six months in the North Pacific and Ber- 
ing Sea and on the seal islands studying the fur seal. 

Mr. Walter I. Lembkey, who has been in immediate charge of the seal islands for 
many years; appointed March 22, 1899. (Hearing No. 2, p. 109, June 9, 1911.) 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Lembkey swears that he does 
not kill yearling seals. 



Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of 

Commerce and Labor, 
House op Representatives, 
Washington, Thursday, February 29, 1912. 

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) 
presiding. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER I. LEMBKEY, AGENT 
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF 
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
AND LABOR. 

Mr. Lembkey. Our killing is confined 
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively. 
The seals which they desire to kill are 
dispatched at once by means of a blow 
on the top of the head with a heavy club, 
and the seal struck is rendered uncon- 
cious immediately, if not killed out- 
right. (Hearing No. 9, p. 360, Feb. 29, 
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor.) 



But Clark, special investigat- 
ing expert, reports that yearlings 
are killed — "no seal too small " 
for killing. 

July 23. — Attended the killing at 
Northeast Point and looked over the 
rookeries again after the drive. There 
are 5 harems to-day on the west side of 
Sea Lion Neck, where only 3 were found 
on the 14th. 

A killing was made at Halfway Point as 
usual on the return trip. It yielded 32 
skins. Fifteen animals — young bulls — 
too large for killing and 9 shaved heads 
were exempted, but no small seals what- 
ever. As the end of the killing season 
approaches it is plain that no seal is 
really too small to be killed. Skins of less 
than 5 pounds weight are taken and also 
skins of 8 and 9 pounds. These latter 
are plainly animals which escaped the 
killing of last year because their heads 
were shaved. Otherwise it does not seem 
clear how they did escape. 

July 31 . — This is the last day of sealing, 
and preparations are being made to drive 
every rookery. The killing from Reef 
and Gorbatch yields 660 skins. This 
represents 76 per cent of the animals 
driven. One hundred and ten seals are 
obtained from Lukanin and Kitovi. No 
small seals are rejected in this drive; 21 
small ones are left from the Reef drive. 
Nineteen skins are obtained at Halfway 
Point. The drive at Northeast Point 
gives 330 skins; 15 small ones only are 
exempted. Zapadni, redriven to-day, 
gives 41 additional skins taken. Three 
small ones are released. At the drive 
yesterday from this rookery 39 small 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



227 



Lembkey swears that he does 
not kill yearling seals. 

Committee on Expenditures 
in the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, 
House of Representatives, 
Washington, Thursday, February 29, 1912. 

The committee met at 11 o'clock a. m., 
Hon. John H. Rothermel (chairman) pre- 
siding. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER I. LEMBKEY, AGENT 
ALASKA SEAL FISHERIES, BUREAU OF 
FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
AND LABOR. 

Mr. Lembkey. Our killing is confined 
to 2 and 3 year old males exclusively. 
The seals which they desire to kill are dis- 
patched at once by means of a blow on the 
top of the head with a heavy club, and the 
seal struck is rendered unconscious im- 
mediately, if not killed outright. (Hear- 
ing No. 9, p. 360, Feb. 29, 1912.) 



animals were released. Most of these are 
probably included in the killing to-day. 
Gorbatch is driven a second time to-day 
and 62 skins taken. 

This is certainly whirlwind sealing and 
an effective clean-up of the hauling 
grounds. If the Alaska Commercial Co. 
cleaned up the hauling grounds without 
reference to the new lessees in the season 
of 1889, the North American Commercial 
Co. has in like manner cleaned up the 
hauling grounds without reference to the 
lessees of next year. 

The total of to-day's killing on St. Paul 
is 1,222 skins. (Report G. A. Clark to 
Secretary Nagel. Sept. 30, 1909, pp. 887, 
888, 892, S93; Appendix A, June 24, 1911. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

But Special Agent Clark reports 
that Lembkey has killed and kills 
yearling seals. 

The yearlings of both sexes for the sea- 
son must number about 12,000 each. 

This question of the proportion of the 
sexes surviving to killable and breeding 
age is a fundamertxl one. It could be 
settled in a very few seasons by such regu- 
lation of killing for the quota as would 
limit it to animals of 3 years of age and 
over, leaving the 2-year-olds untouched. 
The quota would then fall where it be- 
longs, on the 3-year-olds, and give a close 
approximation of the survivals among the 
young males, which in turn could be ap- 
plied to the young females. This was the 
method used in 1896-97, when a mini- 
mum of 6 pounds in weight of skins pre- 
vailed. During the present season and 
for some seasons past a minimum of 5 
pounds has been in force, the skins taken 
ranging in weight all the way from 4 to 14£ 
pounds, bringing all classes of animals 
from yearlings to 4-year-olds into the 
quota. 

The result of this manner of killing is 
that we have no clear idea from the quota 
of the number of younger animals belong- 
ing to the herd . From the irregularity of 
the movements of the yearlings of both 
sexes and the 2-year-old cows, they can 
not be counted or otherwise accurately 
estimated on the rookeries. 

George Archibald Clark, 
Assistant in Charge of 
Fur-Seal Investigation. 

Stanford University, 

September 30, 1909. 

(Appendix A, pp. 850, 851, June 24, 
1911.) 



228 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Lembkey swears that every 
step is taken to guard the female 
seals from killing. 



Mr. Lembkey. Females on land are 
protected by every effort of human inge- 
nuity that can be devised compatible 
with the taking of the skins of the surplus 
young males, and the committee can be 
assured first that the number killed in 
the past is negligible and that none ever 
have been or will be killed deliberately. 

In treating of the subject of the killing 
of females, I have suppressed no fact that 
would aid the committee in forming its 
conclusions regarding the number of these 
animals killed. After hearing this evi- 
dence I am sure that the committee will 
conclude that, in regard to the accidental 
killing of an occasional female, in spite 
of the greatest care exercised, no charge 
of malfeasance will lie. When we con- 
sider the fact, also, that thousands of these 
females were killed annually by pelagic- 
sealers in the sea, it can be seen that the 
accidental and unavoidable killing on 
land of a half dozen females annually 
could have, to say the least, no bearing 
upon the future of the herd. (Hearing 
No. 9, p. 381, Mar. 1, 1912, H. Com. Ex. 
Dept. Com. and L.) 



Lembkey compelled to admit 
that he does not know whether 
female skins are taken, or not; no 
penalty for killing them inflicted. 

Mr. McLean. After the skins are re- 
moved, can you distinguish between a 
male and female 2-year-old? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir; at once. Oh, 
1 beg pardon — 2-year-olds? 

Q. After the skin is removed from the 
animal? — A. If you would look at the 
carcass of a 2-year old you could not dis- 
tinguish it readily, but the man skinning 
the seal recognizes it the moment he takes 
it into his hand to skin it. Of course he 
examines the organs and matters of that 
kind. 

Q. But the animal is then dead? — A. 
The animal is then dead. 

Q. What I asked you was this — after 
the skin is removed from the animal, by 
the inspection of the skin itself could you 
distinguish between a male or a female 
2-year old. — A. You could by looking at 
the teats of the animal. 

Q. And are they developed on a 2-year- 
old female? — A. I don't know that they 
are. You could find them there possibly. 
I don't know whether they are developed 
or not ; I never examined a skin to find out. 

The Chairman. How positive can you 
be, then, Mr. Lembkey, that no females 
are killed? 

Mr. Lembkey. The reason upon which 
I base that positive statement that no 
females are killed is this: Stringent orders 
are given to all the skinners to report at 
once any female knocked down in the 
drives. They are ordered to report it to 
the agent in charge of the killing and in 
charge of the men. 

Mr. McLean. Is there a penalty then 
inflicted upon the killer for killing the 
female and when he reports it? 

Mr. Lembkey. No; because the killing 
gang consists of six persons, we will say, 
and it is impossible to tell which one of 
those six knocked down the seal; but if a 
female should be knocked down by acci- 
dent an admonition is given to the club- 
bers. 

Q. So that it is quite possible? — A. 
They are jacked up. 

Q. It is quite possible if a female was 
killed through inadvertence that the 
native might not report it? — A. No; be- 
cause the man who reports the presence 
of the female would not in the least be 
culpable, because he is a skinner, having 
nothing to do with the killing. 

Q. He is probably a relative? — A. I 
should not say that. There is no great 
penalty attached to the killing of a female, 
such as to lead the men to suppress the 
fact of its presence. (Dixon Hearing, 
t . S. Senate Com. Cons. Nat. Resources, 
pp. 15, 16, F6b. 4, 1911.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



229 



Under cross - examination. 
Lembkey admits that a yearling 
sealskin of his own identification 
and measurement is 36^ inches 
long. 

Mr. Lembkey. Briefly, Mr. Elliott has 
accused those charged with the manage- 
ment of the seal fisheries with malfeasance 
in office in that — 

1. They have allowed the killing of 
thousands of yearling seals. 

Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that. I 
want to get it distinctly in the record that 
this man knew exactly what he was doing 
all along. 

It became necessary, then, for the com- 
mittee to get from Mr. Lembkey his own 
identification and measurement of a 
yearling seal and its skin. To this end 
he was examined, and he testified as fol- 
lows — you will see the point, because he 
has testified that he did not kill anything 
"under 2 years old," because the regula- 
tions forbid it. He testified as follows, on 
page 442, Hearing No. 9: 

"Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, do you 
know the length of a yearling seal from its 
nose to the tip of its tail? 

"Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; not offhand. 

"Mr. Elliott. You never measured 
one? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Oh, yes; I have meas- 
ured one. 

"Mr. Elliott. Have you no record of 
it? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I have a record of it 
here. 

"Mr. Elliott. What is its length? 
_ "Mr. Lembkey. The length of a year- 
ling seal on the animal would be from the 
tip of the nose to the root of the tail, 394, 
inches in one instance and 394, in another 
instance 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

"Mr. Lembkey. And 41 in another in- 
stance. I measured only three." 
* * * * 

Also on page 443: 

"Mr. Elliott. How much can you say 
is left on a yearling after you have taken 
the skin off? 

"The Chairman. How much skin is 
left after you have taken it off? 

"Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; after they re- 
move it for commercial purposes a certain 
amount is left on. 

"Mr. Lembkey. I stated about 3 inches. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then that would leave a 
yearling skin to be 35 inches long. 

"Mr. Lembkey. No ; if it was 39£ inches 
long, it would leave it 364 inches. That 
is, all the animal from the tip of the nose 
to the root of the tail would be 394 inches 
long. Three inches off that would leave 
364 inches." 



Lembkey then admits that an 
accurate measurement of the 
12,920 skins he took in 1910, de- 
clare the fact that 7,733 of them 
arc only 34 inches long 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey having 
thus identified "7,733 " of his 12,920 skins 
as ' : small pups" and "extra small pups," 
the committee then examined him as to 
the lengths of those "small pup" and 
"extra small pup " skins; he then testified 
as follows, page 441, Hearing No. 9: 

"Mr. Elliott. I am getting at the 
analysis of your catch which you have 
given here already. You have given in 
a statement here that 8,000 of them were 
"small" and "extra small." 

"Mr. Lembkey. 7,700. 

"Mr. Elliott. 7,700? 

"Mr. Lembkey. 7,733 were small and 
extra small pups. 

"Mr. Elliott. Mr. Fraser tells us that 
those seals, none of them measured more 
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The committee can 
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser 
states that small pups measured 33| 
inches in length." 

The Chairman. What would that indi- 
cate as to age? 

Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that — 

"Mr. Elliott. From there [indicating] 
to there [indicating] on that diagram 

"Mr. Lembkey. 33f inches in length, 
and extra small pups measured 30 inches 
in length. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then you have some 
extra small pups there which makes it 
8,000? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Only 11 of those. 

"Mr. Elliott. It does not amount to 
anything. 

"Mr. Lembkey. It just makes your 
S,000 about 300 more than the actual 
number. 

"Mr. Elliott. That is the reason I 
used those round numbers. It does not 
amount to anything one way or the other. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The actual number is 
300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott." 

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own 
summary and official record of the meas- 
urements of "7,733 fur sealskins," which 
he took during the season of 1910 on the 
Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that no 
one of them exceeds in length 34 inches. 
That fact determines them — all of them — 
to have been the skins taken from yearling 
seals. (Hearing No. 14, pp. 903, 904, 905, 
Julv25. 1912.) 



230 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



In this distinct affirmation and state- 
ment, Mr. Lembkey tells the committee 
that a "yearling" fur-seal skin of his own 
identification and measurement is 36£ 
inches long. It then became, in order to 
understand what the lengths of those 
12,920 fur-seal skins were, which he took 
during the season of 1910 on the Pribilof 
Islands, and then certified them into the 
record of his work as being — all of them — 
' ' taken from male seals not under 2 years 
of age." (See testimony Apr. 13, 1912, 
pp. 428, 429, Hearing No. 9.) 

Lembkey declares that he can 
not distinguish the sex of year- 
ling seals; that he does not kill 
them. 

The Chairman. How many did you 
kill last year? 

Mr. Lembkey. We killed 12,920. 

Q. How many had the old fur company 
killed the year before? — A. They killed 
14,000 and something. 

Q. What was the youngest seal you 
killed; what age? — A. Two years old. 

Q. The statement has been made that it 
is hardly possible to distinguish the male 
and the female at that age? — A. At 2 years 
old? 

Q. Yes; what is your opinion? — A. 
There is considerable difficulty in distin- 
guishing the young males and females. 
There is considerable difficulty in distin- 
guishing the male and the female year- 
ling. ' They are both of the same size and 
general formation. It is almost impossi- 
ble for anybody not an expert to pick 
them out and distinguish between them, 
and it is rather difficult, even for an ex- 
pert; but of the 2-year-olds the females are 
not on the hauling grounds; they are on 
the breeding rookeries for their initial 
impregnation. The 2-year-old males, on 
the other hand, are on the hauling out 
grounds. 

Q. In the killing last year, did you kill 
any female seals? — A. Not to my knowl- 
edge, sir. I had general supervision, as I 
say, over the work on both islands, but, 
being back and forth from day to day, I 
was not present at every killing and could 
not, of course, be; but I carefully inter- 
rogated this morning Mr. Judge, who had 
charge of the killing on St. Paul, and Maj. 
Clark, who had charge on St. George, as to 
whether any female seals had been killed 
during the past season, to their knowl- 
edge, and they stated that none had been 
killed. (Dixon hearing, Feb. 4, 1911, p. 
10, IT. S. Senate Com. on Conservation 
Nat. Resources.) 



But Lembkey is compelled to 
admit that he took 7,733 yearling 
skins in 1910. 



Mr. Lembkey having thus identified 
"7,733" of his 12,920 skins as "small 
pups" and "extra small pups," the com- 
mittee then examined him as to the 
lengths of those "small pup" and "extra 
small pup" skins; he then testified as 
follows, page 441, Hearing No. 9: 

"Mr. Elliott. I am getting at the 
analysis of your catch which you have 
given here already. You have given in a 
statement here that 8,000 of them were 
'small' and 'extra small.' 

"Mr. Lembkey. 7,700. 

"Mr. Elliott. 7,700? 

"Mr. Lembkey. 7,733 were small and 
extra small pups. 

"Mr. Elliott.- Mr. Fraser tells us that 
those seals, none of them measured more 
than 34 inches nor less than 30 inches. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The committee can 
see what Mr. Fraser states. Mr. Fraser 
states that small pups measured 33f 
inches in length." 

The Chairman. What Would that indi- 
cate as to age? 

Mr. Elliott. I am coming to that — 

"Mr. Elliott. From there [indicating] 
to there [indicating] on that diagram 

"Mr. Lembkey. 33| inches in length, 
and extra small pups measured 30 inches 
in length. 

"Mr. Elliott. Then you have some 
extra small pups there which makes it 
8,000? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Only 11 of those. 

"Mr. Elliott. It does not amount to 
anything. 

"Mr. Lembkey. It just makes your 
8,000 about 300 more than the actual 
number. 

"Mr. Elliott. That is the reason I 
used those round numbers. It does not 
amount to anything one way or the other. 

"Mr. Lembkey. The actual number is 
300 short of 8,000, Mr. Elliott." 

Mr. Lembkey thus testifies that his own 
summary and official record of the meas- 
urements of "7,733 fur sealskins," which 
he took during the season of 1910 on the 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



231 



Lembkey swears that he had 
"reliable data" upon which the 
regulations were lowered to " 5 
pounds" minimum skin weight 
from a 5^-pound limit. 

Mr. Lembkey. We have found on the 
islands that the most reliable way of gaug- 
ing sealskins so as to classify them into 
different ages is that of weight, of weigh- 
ing the skins. We have very reliable data 
showing that 2-year-olds seldom if ever 
weigh less than 5 pounds, and we also have 
data which give us the information that 
the skins of 3-year-olds weigh from 6^ to 
8J pounds. Upon that basis we have es- 
tablished our regulations. (Hearing No. 
9, p. 398, Mar. 1, 1912; H.Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Labor.) 

Lembkey says that "perhaps" 
he has published a table of skin 
weights. 

Mr. Elliott. As much official as your 
work. Have you published any table of 
weights or measurements? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not know, Mr. 
Elliott, Have I? 

Mr. Elliott. Have you? I am asking 
you. 

The Chairman. He has said he does 
not remember. 

Mr. Lembkey. I perhaps have in one 
of my reports. 

Mr. Elliott. When? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember the 
exact date. I am not evading the point, 
I simply can not remember the exact date. 
Perhaps you have that data. 

The Chairman. Did you publish a re- 
port? 

Mr. Lembkey. I think in one of my re- 
ports — I think it was in 1907, I am not cer- 
tain which year — appeared a statement of 
the classification of the skins in London 
for that year, with an approximation of 
the ages of the animals. I think it was in 
1907 . That is what you had in your mind, 
is it not? 

Mr. Elliott. That is not a table show- 
ing 

Mr. Lembkey. That is the only table. 

Mr. Elliott. Therefore you have never 
published any table? 

Mr. Lembkey. If you wish to draw that 
conclusion 

Mr. Elliott. You have been up there 
all these years, and now, to-day, you can. 



Pribilof Islands, declares the fact that no 

one of them exceeds in length 34 inches. 
That fad determines them — all of them— 
!o have been the skins laken from yearling 
seals — (Hearing No. 14, p. 905, July 
25, 1912. IT. Com.' Exp. Dept, Com. and 
Labor. ) 

But, under cross-examination, 
Lembkey admits he had no "reli- 
able data" as warrant for chang- 
ing the 5? limit to 5 pounds — only 
his "opinion." 

Mr. Lembkey. 1906 is when we re- 
duced the weight from 5h pounds to 5 
pounds. Please get that correct. 

Mr. Elliott. But in 1904 you made 
that recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. To Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you any table of 
weight measurement of your own making 
which wan-anted you in making that rec- 
ommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed 
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, p. 
450, Apr. 13, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Labor.) 

But, on examination, he ad- 
mits that he never has prepared 
such a table. 

Mr. Lembkey. What do you mean, 
that the weight of a 2-year-old is 5 
pounds? 

Mr. Elliott. No; I say you say "from 
5 to 6 h pounds." 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes; but you have got 
to give us 

Mr. Elliott. That is what I stated — 5 
to 6^- pounds. 

The Chairman. That is the answer to 
your question. That is fair. You ought 
not to assume to know more about it than 
he does. 

Mr. Elliott. No; I can not find his 
statement about it before.. I wanted to 
get it into the record. 

The Chairman. Is his answer to your 
question? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes; that is there. You 
have no official record of the weights of a 
3-year-old skin, have you? You have 
never published any? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes; I published the 
weights of a 2-year-old and 3-year-old 
skin. I made the statement in my re- 
ports to the effect 

Mr. Elliott. You said it was an ap- 
proximation. 

Mr. Lembkey. I have made a state- 
ment in my reports giving an approxima- 
tion of the weights of skins from seals of 
different ages. Now that I recollect, it 
was not in the form of a table. I have 
stated repeatedly in the text of my re- 
ports that a 2-year-old would weigh from 



232 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



not tell from any official records of yours 
what the weight of a 2-year-old skin is? 

Mr. Lembkey. What? 

Mr. Elliott. You can not tell from any 
official records of yours what the weight of 
a 2-year-old skin is. You say it is 5 
pounds. Where is the official record? 
(Hearing No. 9. p. 436, Apr. 13. 1912.) 



Lembkey swears that the data 
upon which he orders and directs 
the killing' is ''very reliable." 



Mr. Lembkey. We have found on the 
islands that the most reliable way of 
gauging sealskins so as to classify them 
into different ages is that of weight, of 
weighing the- skins. We have very re- 
liable data showing that 2-year-olds sel- 
dom if ever weigh less than 5 pounds, and 
we also have data which give us the in- 
formation that the skins of 3-year-olds 
weigh from 6^ to 8£ pounds. Upon that 
basis we have established our regulations. 
Now it is absolutely impossible lor us to 
proceed to any classification with regard 
to age by means of measurements on the 
islands for the reason that the green skin 
is very pliable and flexible, and by a little 
pressure could be made a foot or a foot 
and a half longer than it really is, or wider, 
in whichever direction you wish to apply 
the pressure, so that on the islands the 
only standard we can fix is the standard 
of weight, i Hearing No. 9, p. 398. Mar. 1, 
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept Com. and 
Labor, i 



5 to 6h pounds. (Hearing No. 9, p. 437, 
Apr. 13, 1912.) 

Mr. Lembkey. 1906 is when we re- 
duced the weight from 5£ pounds to 5 
pounds. Please get that correct. 

Mr. Elliott. But in 1904 you made 
that recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. To Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you any table of 
weight measurement of your own making 
which warranted you in making that rec- 
ommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed 
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, p. 
450, Apr. 13, 1912.) 

But he officially reports in 1 907 
that he has nothing,' but an "ap- 
proximate" idea of the size and 
weights of the skins. 

Mr. Lembkey. The average weight of 
these sizes has been determined by Lamp- 
son & Co., as well as by the agents on the 
islands. (See S. Doc. No. 98, 59th Cong., 
1st sess. , p. 88; also proceedings Fur-Seal 
Arbitration, vol. 8, pp. 916 et seq.) As 
certain of the sizes of skins do not occur 
at all in the islands catch, the weights as 
given by Lampson & Co. are here used, 
although they do not correspond in every 
respect with our idea of the average 
weights of seals of a given age. Opposite 
these weights I have placed the age of the 
animals from which they were taken, 
based on my judgment after having as- 
sisted in weiehine; thousands of skins: 



Large wigs 

Small wigs 

Middlings 

Middlings and smalls. . 

Smalls 

Large pups 

Middling paps 

Small pups 

Extra small pups 

Extra extra small pups 
Gray pups 



Weight. 


Lbs. 


Oz. 


34 





23 





14 


fi 


11 


3 


9 


S 


s 




(i 


12 


5 


10 


4 


11 


3 


13 


3 


1) 



Age. 



0) 



1 Four to five months. 

The ages of seals of a given weight 
marked in the above table are based on 
an average and are necessarily only ap- 
proximate. They are stated here solely 
for the purpose in hand and not as an 
effort on my part to fix the correct weight 
of the skins of seals of a certain age. As 
it is, however, it is close enough to con- 
struct an estimate such as we desire. 
(Appendix A. p. 498. June 11, 1911, H. 
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 
(Rept. of W. I. Lembkey. Sept. 9. 1907, 
to Sec. Com. and Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



233 



Lembkey swears it is impossi- 
ble to measure a "green" sealskin. 

Mr. Madden. Would nol a stretched 
skin show that it bad been stretched? 

Mr. Lembkey. No; the green .-kin, as a 
matter of fact, is as pliable as a piece of 
india rubber, and in throwing it down on 
the ground it may cur] up or stretch 
lengthwise; it is so elusive in form it is 
impossible for us to measure it; that is 
the truth of the matter. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. You say measure- 
ment would not be reliable because it 
might be stretched. Suppose you did not 
stretch it, suppose you take it honestly, 
then would it be, if honestly taken, would 
it be a test? 

Mr. Lembkey. I tried to make thai 
clear to the committee. 

The Chairmax. Thai is a direct ques- 
tion. Why do you not answejf it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I am attempting to. It 
is impossible; of course, all our actions up 
there are honestly 

Mr. Madden (interposing). Answer the 
question right straight. Do not try to ex- 
plain it. 

Mr. Lembkey. 1 have attempted to 
state that in measuring a green skin it is 
impossible to find out its exact length 
when you lay it on the ground, because it 
may curl up, or roll, or stretch, and it can 
only be measured after it lias become 
hardened by salt. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Then it will not 
stretch? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly not. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. That is the proper 
time to measure it, after it has become 
rigid and stiff? 

Mr. Lembkey. Certainly. (Hearing 
No. 9, p. 399. Mar. 1, 1912.) 



But when under cross-examina- 
tion he denies the statement. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, you staled 
to the committee that it was impossible to 
measure a yearling skin, and therefore 
you have never done it. 

Air. Lembkey. I do not remember that. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you not say that? 

Mr. Lembkey. I stated that it was not 
impossible to measure a green skin. I 
said that I have never done it. 

Mr. Elliott. I have not seen your tes- 
timony. Of course, I can not take you 
up on it. 

Mr. Lembkey. You know you have 
seen my testimony, because I have seen 
your notations in the report of the com- 
mittee's hearings. 

The Chairman. Never mind about 
that. Ask the question. 

Mr. Elliott. I have not read your tes- 
timony; I only remember what you said. 
(Hearing No. 9, p. 439, Apr. 13. 1912.) 



234 



FUK-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Lembkey swears that ho saved 
the 3-year-olds from killing as 
food seals by a 6^-pound maxi- 
mum skin weight limit, but — 



Mr. Lembkey. Notwithstanding re- 
peated allegations to the contrary, the 
regulations of the department fully pro- 
tect the breeding herd, and these regula- 
tions are carefully and thoroughly ob- 
served. They require that no female or 
marked male should be killed, and no 
male seal having a pelt weighing less than 
5 or more than 8J pounds. During the 
food killing season of the fall and spring 
seals having skins weighing ovei 6^ 
pounds or under 5 pounds may not be 
taken, this extra limitation being enforced 
to prevent the killing of those males 
marked for breeding purposes after the 
new hair has grown in and obliterated the 
mark which is placed upon their hiaes at 
the beginning of the season. 

Mr. Madden. Right there, let me ask a 
question. 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden. I do not think it will in- 
terfere. You said that seals 2 or 3 years 
of age were killed? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden. And that no skin weighed 
less than 5 or more than 8 pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. More than 8? pounds. 

Mr. Madden. Except during a certain 
period of the season when the higher 
weight was reduced to 6^ pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madden. What becomes of the 
seals more than 3 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are allowed to ma- 
ture as breeders. (Hearing No. 9, p. 363; 
Feb. 29, 1912.) 



But, it seems that that 6^- 
pound maximum was actually in- 
creased to 8^ pounds. So these 
"saved" 3-year-olds in June and 
July were all killed in the October- 
November following as "food 
seals." 

Mr. Lembkey. Let me interrupt you a 
moment. The instructions for 1904, 
known as the Hitchcock rules, used this 
language: "No seal shall be taken that is 
over 4 years of age." That, of course, 
was intended to mean that no 4-year-olds 
were to be killed, but the company took it 
to mean that a seal was not over 4 years 
until it was at least 5 years of age, and 
that they could at least kill 4-year-olds. 
That was the controversy. 

Mr. McGtJiRE. Right there, Mr. Lemb- 
key, did you prohibit their killing them? 

Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

Mr. McGuire. Over 4 years of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. I did. 

Mr. Elliott. In 1904? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. Did you do it in 1905? 

Mr. Lembkey. Yes. 

Mr. Elliott. How did you do it? You 
had no brand on them. 

Mr. Lembkey. By fixing a limit of 
8£ pounds on the skins to be taken. 
(Hearing No. 9, p. 458; Apr. 13, 1912.) 

Dr. Evermann. I wish to call particu- 
lar attention to these paragraphs of the in- 
structions regarding reservations to be 
made: 

[Instruction issued Mar. 9, 1906. J 

Sec. 8. Sizes of billable seals.. — No seals 
shall be killed having skins weighing less 
than 5 pounds nor more than 8J pounds. 
Skins weighing more than 8 \ pounds shall 
not be shipped from the islands, but shall 
be held there subject to such instructions 
as may be furnished you hereafter by the 
department. Skins weighing less than 5 
pounds shall not be snipped from the 
islands unless, in your judgment, the 
number thereof is so small as to justify the 
belief that they have been taken only 
through unavoidable accident, mistake, 
or error in judgment. 

Sec. 10. Seals for food. —The number of 
seals to be killed by the natives for food 
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1906, 
shall not exceed 1,700 on the island of St. 
Paul and 500 on the island of St. George, 
subject to the same limitations and re- 
strictions as apply to the killing of seals 
by the company for the quota. Care 
should be taken that no branded seals be 
killed in the drives for food. (Hearing 
No. 10, pp. 483, 484; Apr. 19, 1912.) 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



235 



The lessees suborn Lembkey and Bureau of Fisheries and then 
secure all of the " reserved" or "spared" seals, in violation of the 
sworn statements made by the latter. 



THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Lembkey declares that it is 
necessary to put a ■ 6^-pound 
limit on food skins to save the 
"reserved" 3-year-olds from kill- 
ing, and tells the Senate Com- 
mittee that it is done. 



Mr. Elliott. Now, Mr. Chairman, in 
the matter of the nullification of the 
Hitchcock rules, with this evidence duly 
considered by your committee, of the 
illegal killing of those yearlirg seals in 
1910 (and that evidence of this guile ap- 
plies to every season 's work on the Pribi- 
lof Islands ever since 1890 down to May 
1, 1910), I desire to present the following 
testimony, which declares that ever since 
May 1, 1904, when the "Hitchcock rules" 
were first ordered by the Department of 
Commerce and Labor, those rules have 
been systematically and flagrantly vio- 
lated by the agents of this department 
who were specially sworn to obey and 
enforce them. 

On February 4, 1911, Chief Special 
Agent Lembkey was introduced by Sec- 
retary Charles Nagel to the United States 
Senate Committee on Conservation of 
National Resources, and during his ex- 
amination by that committee he made 
the following statement, to wit, on page 
14 (hearings on Senate bill 9959, February 
4, 191], Committee on Conservation of 
National Resources | : 

"Dr. Hornaday. How many 'short 
2-year-olds ' were killed last year? 

"Mr. Lembkey. I do not understand 
your term. No seals under 2 years old, to 
my knowledge, were killed. 

"Dr. Hornaday. What would be the 
age of the smallest yearlings taken? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Two-year-olds rarely, 
if any. I may state here, Dr. Hornaday, 
that a great difference of opinion exists 
between Mr. Elliott and the remaining 
people who understand this situation. 
There is a great gulf between their opin- 
ions, and it can never be reconciled on 
the question of the weights of skins of 
2-year-olds. 

"Prof. Elliott. I will present my in- 
formation in a moment. 

" Dr. Hornaday. The minimum weight 
is what? 

"Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds. Dur- 
ing food drives made by the natives. 



But the official instructions 
which the Bureau of Fisheries 
order, declare that that limit of 
6^ pounds has been raised to 8| 
pounds, and "so all of the "re- 
served" 3-year-olds in June and 
July annually, are killed in Octo- 
ber and November, following. 

Dr. Evermann * * * 

"[Instructions issued Mar. 9, 1906.] 

"Sec. 8. Sizes of billable seals- -No seals 
shall be killed having skins weighing 
less than 5 pounds nor more than 8^ 
pounds. Skins weighing more than 8| 
pounds shall not be shipped from the 
islands, but shall be held there subject 
to such instructions as may be furnished 
you hereafter by the department. Skins 
weighing less than 5 pounds shall not be 
shipped from the islands unless, in your 
judgment, the number thereof is so small 
as to justify the belief that they have been 
taken only through unavoidable accident, 
mistake, or error in judgment. 

"Sec. 10. Seals for food. — The number 
of seals to be killed by the natives for 
food for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 
1906, shall not exceed 1,700 on the island 
of St. Paul and 500 on the island of St. 
George, subject to the same limitations 
and restrictions as apply to the killing of 
seals by the company for the ejuota. 
Care should be taken that uo branded 
seals be killed in the drives for food. 

"[Instructions issued Apr. 15, 1907.] 
"Identical with instructions of 1906. 

"[Instruction issued Apr. 1, 1908.] 
"Identical with instructions of 1907. 

"[Instructions issued Mar. 27, 1909.] 

"Sec. 10. Seals for food. — Identical 
with instructions for 1906, 1907, and 1908, 
except in addition is added 'The maxi- 
mum weight for food skins shall not ex- 
ceed 7 pounds. 

"[Instructions issued May 9, 1910.] 

"Sec. 11. Seals for food. — No female 
seal or seal having a skin weighing under 
5 pounds or more than 7 pounds shall be 
killed during the so-called food-killing 
season . 



236 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



when the seals killed are limited to (i.J 
pounds, in order to exclude all these 3- 
year-olas branded during Che summer, 
you understand the natives do kill down 
a little more closely than our regulations 
allow, for the reason that they need the 
meat, and since they have to exclude all 
these fine, fat seals over 0^ pounds they 
go for the little fellows a little more 
closely. 

"The CHAIRMAN. How many seals were 
killed Last year for food by the natives? 

"Mr. Lembkey. The -limit was 2,500. 
Speaking offhand, I think about 2.300 
Were killed. 

"Q. Were any females killed? — A. No, 
sir; not to my knowledge, and, as I stated, 
I carefully interrogated these two gentle- 
men who had charge wf this killing, and 
they stated that to their knowledge no 
female was killed. 

"Q. What class of males were killed by 
the natives for food.? — A. Under 6 4 
pounds." (Hearing No. 14, p. 907, Julv 
25, 1912, If. Com. Exp. Dept. C. & L.) ' 

Lembkey swears that he re- 
serves from slaughter 1,000 
3-year-old seals every year, be- 
fore any killing begins for the 
season in June. 

Mr. Lembkey. Before any killing was 
done this summer, as has been the prac- 
tice for some years past following the 
bureau's instructions, 1,000 of the 
choicest 3-year-olds appearing in the first 
drives of the season were reserved for 
future breeders and marked by shearing 
their heads, so as to render their subse- 
quent recognition during the season an 
easy matter. These seals, thus marked, 
were immune from clubbing and were not 
killed. These 3-year-old seals the follow- 
ing year became 4-year-olds, the killing 
of which class in general is prohibited. 
Only after the 1,000 3-year-olds, known 
as the breeding reserve, is secured and 
marked does the killing of seals for skins 
begin. The killing is confined only to 
the 2 and 3 year old immature males not 
required for purposes of reproduction. 
To obtain these, the breeding rookeries 
are not disturbed, but the bachelors' 
hauling grounds on either island were 
driven every fifth or sixth day if seals 
were found thereon in sufficient numbers 
to justify driving. The killing season 
begins on July 1 and ends July 31, but 
one drive is always made subsequently 
on August 10 to furnish the natives with 
fresh meat during a portion of the so- 
called "stagey" season (when the seals 
shed their hair), which begins August 10 
and ends October 20, and during which 
no killing is done. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 



"[Instructions issued Mar. 31, 1911.] 
"Identical with instructions of 1910." 

Mr. Lembkey. We have found on the 
island that the most reliable way of gaug- 
ing seal skins so as to classify them into 
different ages is that of weight — of weigh- 
ing the skins. We have very reliable 
data showing that 2-year-olds seldom if 
ever weigh less than 5 pounds, and we also 
have data which give us the information 
that the skins of 3-year-olds weigh from 
(>l to 8i pounds. Upon that basis we 
have established our regulations. (Hear- 
ing No. 9, p. 398: Hearing No. 10, pp. 
483-486, Apr. 19, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 

Dept. C. & L.) 



But Clark reports that these 
reserved seals in June are all sub- 
sequently killed, and tells how 
they are so taken. 

3. The reserve of bachelors. — Beginning 
with the season of 1904, there has been set 
aside each spring a special breeding re- 
serve of 2,000 young males of 2 and 3 years 
of age. These animals have been marked 
by clipping the head with sharp shears, 
giving them a whitish mark readily dis- 
tinguishing them to the clubbers. They 
are carefully exempted on the killing 
field and released. 

This method of creating a breeding 
reserve seems open to considerable criti- 
cism, and has apparently been only 
moderately successful. The mark put 
upon the animal is a temporary one. The 
fur is replaced during the fall and winter, 
and the following spring the marked seals 
can not be recognized. The animals 
being 2 and 3 years of age are still killable 
the next season, the 2-year-olds in fact 
the second season. A new lot of 2,000 is 
clipped the next season, and these are 
carefully exempted, but, except in so far 
as animals of the previous season's mark- 
ing are reclipped, they have no protection 
the second season, and without doubt are 
killed. 

If such is not the case, it is difficult to 
understand what becomes of them. The 
annual reservation from 1904 to 1907, both 
seasons included, would aggregate 8,000 
animals. These animals would be of ages 
ranging from 8 to 5 years this season. The 
only animals present in 1909 which could 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



237 



362, 363, Feb. 29, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

Dr. Hornaday. The minimum weight 
is what? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds. During 
food drives made by the natives, when 
the seals killed are limited to 6i pounds, 
in order to exclude all these 3-year-olds 
branded during the summer, you under- 
stand the natives do kill down a little 
more closely than our regulations allow, 
for the reason that they need the meat, 
and since they have to exclude all these 
fine, fat seals over Qh pounds they go for 
the little fellows a little more closely. 
(Dixon Hearing, U. S. Sen. Com. Cons. 
Nat. Res., Feb. 4, 1911, pp. 14, 15. 

The seal contractor swears that 
the "good conscientious" Bureau 
of Fisheries' agents should have 
full swing and control on the is- 
lands. 

The Chairman. I mean, in the presenl 
depleted condition of the herd, if there 
should be a short closed season, so that 
the seals can multiply and then do what 
you say. Would that be good policy, in 
your judgment? 

Mr. Liebes. Well, I said, leave it to the 
people on the islands; if they find they 
can not take any, let them not take any; 
there should be no compulsion to take 
any; but if the people on the islands may 
take any, then take the surplus. 

The Chairman. But you see you as- 
sume that the people on the islands will 
do the right thing, and I do not mean to 
insinuate they would do anything but 
what is right; however, I am trying to get 
your real opinion of the thing in the 
record . 

Mr. Liebes. As you stated, there might 
be some danger in leaving it to the officers 
on the islands, but I do not think the dan- 
ger would be as great as instructions given 
from Washington in the best of faith, 
because they might meet other conditions 
when they arrive there. I think the 
lesser evil, if there are any evils, is to 
allow the officer in charge to determine. 

The Chairman. A great deal, of course, 
must be intrusted to the people in charge. 

Mr. Liebes. Well, not necessarily so. 
If they are allowed to recuperate, they 
will be all right. They will be able to 
take seals each year, and I certainly think 
that is the only way to do. This idea of 
shutting down for a number of years is 
unnecessary and absolute rot. You have 
got to run your seal herd like you would 
run a stock range; it has got to be left to 
people who understand the business, and 
in the discretion of the officers in charge, 
men of ability, if you have confidence in 
them, and from what I have seen of the 



have resulted from this reservation were 
the 513 idle and half bulls. Even if we 
assume that they have in the meantime 
replaced the entire stock of breeding bulls 
this would account for only 1,900 of them, 
and the active bulls were for the most 
part of a distinctly older class. (Rept. 
G. A. Clark to Sec. Nagel, Sept. 30, 
1909, p. 847, Appendix A, June 24, 1911. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But when they get up there, 
Liebes asks that they give him 
full swing, and they do. 



St. Pauls Island, Alaska. 

(Journal of the chief special agent in charge of Seal 
Islands. 

Thursday, June 9, 1892. — Mr. J. Stanley- 
Brown arrived and took the place of Maj, 
Williams as United States agent in 
charge of the Seal Islands (p. 2). 

Friday, July 8, 1892— -The entire con- 
trol and management of the killing 
grounds and killing of the seals were given 
to Mr. Fowler, of the N. A. C. Co., by 
order of Mr. J. Stanley-Brown, agent in 
charge, and Assistant Agent Murray was 
ordered to count the seals. 



The killing is entirely directed by the 
agent of the lessees who directs the grade 
of seal to be taken. (Report of Chief Spl. 
Agt. J. B. Crowley, Nov. 1, 1896.) 

This season (1909) they (the drives) 
have been entirely in the hands of the 
lessees * * * the lessees have been 
free to take what they could get. (Re- 
port of G. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, to Sec. 
Nagel, Dept. Com. and Labor, pp. 
829-866, Appendix A, June 24, 1911, 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



238 



PUB- SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



Department of Fisheries they certainly 
have the ability, and the people around 
the islands certainly understand their 
business. They are good conscientious 
people. If such people run the thing and 
take the surplus males each year, it will 
be all right, (Hearing No. 13, pp. 877- 
879, June 20, 1912, Ho. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Labor.) 

Hitchcock, learning that the 
lessees and Lembkey were trying 
to get a modification of his 5£- 
pound minimum limit to 5 pounds, 
had the following peremptory in- 
struction added to the orders of 
May 1, 1905: 

Department op 
Commerce and Labor, 
Office of the Secretary. 

Washington, May 1, 1905. 
Mr. W. I. Lembkey, 

Agent in Charge of Seal Islands, De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor, 
St. Paul Island, Pribilof Group, 
Alaska. 
Sir: With reference to the provision in 
your instructions prohibiting the lessees 
from killing any seals during the coming 
season that are under 2 years of age, you 
are directed in the enforcement of this 
requirement to fix upon the .same mini- 
mum limit of weight for the skins to be 
taken as that prescribed for the season of 

1904, namely. 5£ pounds. 

It will be your duty to see that every 
possible precaution is exercised to prevent 
the killing of seals that yield skins under 
the weight mentioned. 
Respectfully, 

V. II . Metcalf, 

Secretary. 

(Appendix A, p. 153, June 24, 1911, 
H. Com. Exp. Dept, Com. and Labor.) 

Lembkey officially declares, in 

1905, that no change should be 
made in the Hitchcock rules — it 
''would be wholly unwise." 



present regulations should be con- 
tinued. 

Since it appears that a scarcity of bulls 
is threatened on the islands, and, in fact, 
has occurred actually on several of the 
rookery spaces on St. Paul, any change in 
the present regulations lookine; to a lessen- 
ing of the restrictions placed on killing on 
the islands would be wholly unwise. 

The result of these regulatiors can not 
be felt before 1907, as has in effe.'t been 



Lembkey acknowledges this 
peremptory mandate, but he does 
not enter it on his official journal 
of the Government house, St. 
Paul Island. 



Office of Agent in 

Charge Seal Islands, 
St. Paul Island, Alaska, June 17, 1905. 
The honorable the Secretary of 

Commerce and Labor. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge 
the receipt of the department's letter of 
the 1st ultimo, prescribing, for the season 
of 1905, a minimum weight of sealskins to 
be taken of 5i pounds, and to say that the 
necessary measures will be taken to have 
the regulations properly observed on the 
islands. 

A copy of the letter referred to has been 
forwarded to the assistant agent in charge 
of St. George Island, for his guidance. 
Respectfully, 

W. I. Lembkey, 
Agent in Charge Seal Islands. 

(Appendix A, p. 153, June 24, 1911, H. 
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But when Hitchcock is "out of 
the department, then Lembkey, 
without warrant, does unite with 
the lessees and secures a change 
for the worse in them. 

Mr. Elliott. When Mr. Hitchcock left 
the department who succeeded him? 

Mr. Lembkey. As chief clerk? I think 
Mr. Bowen did. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Bowen. Did you 
again renew your recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember that 
I recommended that the weight be re- 
duced to 5 pounds in 1905, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. That order of reduction 
was made in 1906? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1906. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



239 



stated. During the interval which must 
elapse before that time a Bteady decrease 
in hulls will be encountered. The closest 
killing on land occurred during the sea- 
sons of 1902 and 1903. Id the bitter sea- 
son the lessees released from the drives on 
St. Paul only 983 email seals. This prac- 
tical annihilation of bachelors for this year 
will be felt on the rookeries four years 
thereafter, or in 1907. 

Since we are obliged to face in 1906 and 
1907 this extra heavy decrease occurring 
from the closer killing in 1902 and 1903, 
no reduction in the number of bachelor? 
now saved on the islands should be made 
until the rookeries themselves show an 
influx of male life sufficient to more than 
offset th? yearly mortality. (Report 
W. I. Lembkey. Oct. 26, 1905, to Sec'y 
Com. and Labor; Appendix A, p. 175, H. 
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 
24, 1911.) ' 



Lembkey's assistant, Judge, de- 
clares that the seal question was 
completely mastered and under- 
stood by Hitchcock when those 
"regulations" were prepared. 

[The Secretary of Commerce and Labor, retrans- 
fer of trie Alaskan seal service to the Bureau of 
Fisheries, by James Judge, assistant agent, Seal 
Islands.] 

* * * # 

It is to be observed that Hon. Frank 
H. Hitchcock, when connected with the 
Department of Commerce and Labor, had 
charge under the Secretary of the sealing 
business; that he made an exhaustive 
examination of all the questions affecting 
the seal life; that, as before stated herein, 
he prepared the regulations under which 
the business is now conducted. 

* * * * 
Mr. Hitchcock's knowledge of the seal 

life was so perfect and his mastery of the 
seal question was so complete that the 
President remitted the subject to his 
supervision and control even after he 
became First Assistant Postmaster Gen- 
eral. It is earnestly recommended that 
if the reasons assigned in the foregoing 
statements are not deemed sufficient that 
Mr. Hitchcock's knowledge of the subject 
be availed of. 
Respectfully submitted. 



Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk 
I hen? 

Mr. Lembkey. 1 presume Mr. Bowen 
was. 

Mr. Elliott. And you again made the 
recommendation ? 

Mr. Lembkey. Nut to Mr. Bowen; no, 
The recommendation was made, I think, 
to the Secretary, but it was made through 
Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, 
who then had charge of the seal business. 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, he took charge of it? 
Had you in 1904 any table of length, 
weight, and measurement of fur seals to 
contradict the official tables that declared 
a fur seal 2 years of age; the skin of which 
weighed 5§ pounds? Had you any rec- 
ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. flitch- 
cock? 

Mi. Lembkey. 1906 is when we re- 
duced the weight from 5^ pounds to 5 
pounds. Please get that correct. 

Mr. Elliott. But in 1904 you made 
that recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. To Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you any table 
weight measurement of your own making 
which warranted you in making that rec- 
ommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I expressed 
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 
449-450, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

But Lembkey just changed 
them as best in his "opinion"— 
with no warrant for that opinion 
either. [The seal contractor's 
"opinion," too.] 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey. when you 
made that statement in 1901, you went to 
Mr. Hitchcock and recommended a 5- 
pound limit. What did he tell you in 
1904? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember just 
what he did tell me, Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. Did he not tell you that 
you were taking yearling skins? 

Mr. Lembkey. No, sir; he told me that 
you had made the charge that we were 
taking yearling skins. 

Mr. Elliott. Was he not impressed 
with the fact that you were taking year- 
ling skins? 

Mr. Lembkey. No; he was not. 

Mr. Elliott. Yet he fixed the limit 
5£ pounds? 

Mr. Lembkey. He did it solely as I 
have stated — to place the limit so high 
that you nor any other man could make any 
objection to the policy of the department. 

Mr. Elliott. That was very correct on 
his part, was it not? 

* * * * 

Mr. Elliott. When Mr. Hitchcock left 
the department who succeeded him? 



240 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



December, 1908. (Appendix A, p. 
666, June 24, 1911. II. Com. Exp. Dept. 
Com. and Labor.) 

The company's protest regarding the 
department's decision to fix the minimum 
weight of skins at 5£ pounds was brought 
to our attention here at Washington before 
the sailing of the steamer and was filed for 
future reference. - (F. II. Hitchcock to 
W. I. Lembkey, Mav 28, 1904. Appendix 
A, p. 47, June 24,' 1911, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



Lembkey says in his official 
report, 1906, that he made that 
change in the Hitchcock Rules 
because "the department found, " 
etc., "of the fact," etc. 



Mr. Lembkey. The reduction in 1906 
of the limit of weight on small skins from 
5| to 5 pounds was made by the depart- 
ment because of the fact that the latter 
weight more nearly represented the divid- 
ing line between 1 and 2 year old seals. 
The young males between 5 and 5^ pounds 
undoubtedly are 2-year-olds, and the 55- 
pound prohibition resulted in arbitrarily 
turning away from the killng fields sev- 
eral thousands of small 2-year-olds that 
otherwise would be killed for quota. 

This reduction of the limit in weight 
resulted in the dismissal in 1906 of 3,980 
small seals, as against 5,548 in 1905. 
These 3,980 dismissals in 1906 are shown 
elsewhere to represent approximately 
3,300 animals. 

In my opinion, this closer killing among 
the smaller 2-year-olds is advisable. 
Present safeguards against too close killing 
are ample. With their strict enforce- 
ment, it is the part of wisdom to allow the 
lessee to take all remaining young males 
not covered by prohibitory regulation, 
as in so doing it reduces to a minimum a 
class of seals upon which the pelagic 
sealers prey during the summer, and 
which, if saved, would offer no further 
benefit to the herd than that now assured 
under the regulations governing the kill- 
ing on land! (Rept., Dec. 14, 1906, to 
Secretary Com. and Labor, W. I. Lemb- 



Mr. Lembkey. As chief clerk? I think 
Mr. Bowen did. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Bowen. Did you 
again renew your recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I do not remember that 
I recommended that the weight be re- 
duced to 5 pounds in 1905. Mr. Elliott. 

Mr. Elliott. That order of reduction 
was made in 1906? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1906. 

Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk 
then? 

Mr. Lembkey. I presume Mr. Bowen 
was. 

Mr. Elliott. You must have had some- 
thing to present to Mr. Hitchcock and to 
Mr. Bowen as your reason for reducing 
that weight from 54 pounds to 5 pounds. 
What was it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. I experssed 
that as ray opinion. (Hearing No. 9. pp. 
449, 450, 'Apr. 13, 1912. H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

But Lembkey, under cross- 
examination, admits that the 
change was made on his recom- 
mendation, and that he himself, 
had no warrant for making it — 
only his ' ' opinion. ; ' 

Mr. Elliott. That order of reduction 
was made in 1906? 

Mr. Lembkey. In 1906. 

Mr. Elliott. Who was the chief clerk 
then? 

Mr. Lembkey. I presume Mr. Bowen 
was. 

Mr. Elliott. And you again made the 
recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. Not to Mr. Bowen; no. 
The recommendation was made, I think, 
to the Secretary, but it was made through 
Mr. Sims, the solicitor of the department, 
who then had charge of the seal business. 

Mr. Elliott. Oh, he took charge of it? 
Had you in 1904 any table of length, 
weight, and measurement of fur seals to 
contradict the official tables that declared 
a fur seal 2 years of age, the skin of which 
weighed 5J pounds? Had you any rec- 
ords to show Mr. Bowen or Mr. Hitchcock? 

Mr. Lembkey. What year are you 
speaking of, and what records are you 
speaking of? 

Mr. Elliott. You must have had some- 
thing to present to Mr. Hitchcock and to 
Mr. Bowen as your reason for reducing 
that weight from 54 pounds to 5 pounds. 
What was it? 
Mr. Lembkey. You must remember, 
now, that my statement was that that 
change occurred in 1906. 

Mr! Elliott. 1904, you said? 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



241 



key, pp. 264, 265, Appendix A, June 
24," 1911, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor.) 



The lessees with help of Lemb- 
key in 1906, "established" a 
"5-pound" minimum, so as to 
easier "load" the 4^-pound year- 
ling skins. 

Mr. Lembkey. We have found on the 
islands that the most reliable way of 
gauging sealskins so as to classify them 
into different ages is that of weight, of 
weighing the skins. We have very re- 
liable data showing that 2-year-olds sel- 
dom if ever weigh less than 5 pounds, 
and we also have data which give us the 
information that the skins of 3-year-olds 
weigh from 6£ to 8$ pounds. Upon that 
basis we have established our regulations. 
(Hearing No. 9, p. 398, Mar. 1, 1912.) 



Mr. Lembkey. 1906 is when we re 
duced the weight from b\ pounds to 5 
pounds. Please get that correct. 

Mr. Elliott. But in 1904 you made 
that recommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. To Mr. Hitchcock. 

Mr. Elliott. Have you any table of 
weight measurement of your own making 
which warranted you in making that rec- 
ommendation? 

Mr. Lembkey. I had not. 1 expressed 
that as my opinion. (Hearing No. 9, pp. 
449,450, Apr. 13, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

Lucas, under oath, and facing 
cross-examination, tells the truth 
and denies Lembkey. 



Dr. Lucas. In regard to the sizes and 
ages of killable seals, Dr. Evermann has 
pointed out in his admirable resume 1 that 
there is no law against the killing of male 
seals of any age. There have been regu- 
lations against it, but all I can say is that 
no yearlings have been systematically 
killed. I took Mr. Elliott's figures of 
1873 as a good aveiage. He cites the 
weight of 2-year-old skins as 5J pounds. 
1 agree with him there. I think that is a 
good average. (Hearing No. 12, p. 708, 
May 16, 1912.) 

Mr. Elliott. I will go further and 
submit as Exhibit J this paper. I won't 
read all of this in regard to the British 
authority on Alaskan fur-seal classifica- 
tion and what he says, as compared with 
our tallies; but I will read one word from 
a chief British authority in an official 
letter written December 21, 1892, by Sir 
Curtis Lampson's sons to the British com- 
missioners Sir George Baden-Powell and 
Dr. George M. Dawson. Sir Curtis Lamp- 
son says: 

" We are unable to answer your inquiry 
as to in what class in the sales catalogue 
would be placed a skin classified on the 
islands as, say, a 7-pound skin, as we do 
not know whether the classification you 
mention refers to the skins as taken from 
the animals or after they have been 
cured and salted ready for shipment. 
The process of curing and salting must of' 
necessity add to the weight." (See p. 916/ 
Proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration/ 
vol. 8, Paris, 1893.) 

Now, let me tell you that the salt added 
in curing a 4J-pound "green" yearling' 
skin will increase its weight to 5 pounds, 
or even to 5^ pounds, according to the' 
amount of salt used. 

Now, you will understand why a "5- 
pound" skin can not be taken on the' 
islands and honestly, truthfully certified ; 



21588—13- 



-16 



242 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Bowers swears that the skins 
are classified by weight as sent 
from the islands. 

Mr. Bowers. Do you have a report to 
that effect? Have you seen a report to 
that effect? 

Dr. Horn ada y. Yes; and it has been 
published several times. 

Mr. Bowers. I have never seen it; 
neither have you. I think that is a mat- 
ter of record. That is mentioned in the 
report manufactured by Mr. Elliott, based 
upon nothing. 

Mr. Patton. You mean it is a report 
that is sworn to by the people who do the 
selling in London? 

Mr. Bowers. No, sir; it is the classifi- 
cation of the London merchants who sell 
the skins for the United States Govern- 
ment. 

Mr. Patton. And they pay on that 
weight? 

Mr. Bowers. They sell on those 
weights. Their classification is made on 
those weights. 

Mr. Elliott. Right there I want to 
interpose the statement that they do not 
weigh those skins to classify them. They 
measure them. (Hearing No. fi, p. 291; 
July 27, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. 
and Labor.) 



to Mr. NagePs books as a skin "not under 
2 years of age," becasue a 2-year-old skin 
weighs, with the same treatment that this 
skin has received, a minimum of 6 pounds. 
A small '"runt " 2 years old may weigh b\ 
pounds. I have seen "runts" that would 
not weigh 5 pounds, but we are not 
dealing with exceptions. We are dealing 
with broad, square averages. I am will- 
ing to admit that a few exceptions can be 
found. I am willing to admit that a man 
might knock down a ''long" yearling here 
and there; but when he deliberately says 
to Mr. Nagel that a 5-pound skin is a 
2-year-old seal I will take him to the seals 
themselves and they will confound him; 
and you gentlemen can easily go with me. 
I wmdd like to submit this as an exhibit. 

Mr. McGillicuddy. Professor, these 
classifications here are before they are 
salted? 

Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir; they are "green " 
skins. (Hearing No. 1. p. 14, Mav 31, 
1911.) 

Lembkey, who takes the skins 
on the islands, denies his chief, 
Bowers. 

Mr. Young. Let me, before you pass 
from that, ask this: You weigh these green 
skins on the islands, and then measure 
them in the markets in London. What 
is your purpose in weighing, and what is 
their purpose in measuring? 

Mr. Lembkey. Our purpose in weighing 
the skins on the island is to get them 
within the weights prescribed by the 
regulations. Our regulations prescribe 
maximum and minimum weights. Those 
weights are 5 pounds 

Mr. Young. Does that relate to the 
question of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds and eight 
and one-half pounds. 

Mr. Young. Passing from the weight, 
in London what is the determining pur- 
pose in measuring? 

Mr. Lembkey. They measure them I 
fancy— — 

Mr. Young. Are they trying to arrive 
at the question of age, too? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are trying to get 
the size of the skin or the amount of fur on 
the animal. ( Hearing No. 9, pp. 448,449, 
Apr. 13, 1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. 
and Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



243 



Lembkey asserts that the Lon- 
don classification of the sealskins 
is an accurate one — he does not 
tell how it is based. 

Mr. Lembkey. These skins which were 
sent to London during the years 1909 and 
1910 were weighed by the factors after 
their arrival in London and the weights 
found to correspond with those taken on 
the island. As this factor, Lampson & Co., 
is essentially a disinterested person, being 
concerned not the least with the question 
of weights or regulations, hut wholly with 
the sale of the skins and the payments 
therefor, their verification of these weights 
may he taken as conclusive of their accu- 
racy. 

So far. therefore, as concerns compli- 
ance with the regulations and the law in 
the killing of male seals, no nfalfeasance 
can he proven, because not only the rec- 
ords of the department but the weights of 
the same skins in London, taken by an 
independent and responsible body of 
experts, prove that the limits of weight 
laid down by the instructions of the de- 
partment have been complied with as 
closely as it is possible for human agency 
to do so. The weights of skins taken on 
the islands show this, and furthermore 
these weights have been verified in Lon- 
don by an independent and responsible 
body of men. (Hearing No. 9, p. 875. 
.Mar". 1, 1912.) 

Lembkey swears that Lamp- 
son's London classification of the 
sealskins taken on the seal islands 
is an accurate one, and by 
weight. 

Mr. Lembkey. Lampson & Co. is a 
general broker, and 1 believe the only 
one in London. 

Mr. Elliott. They take anything from 
anybody in the United States. 

Mr. Lembkey. Undoubtedly. Now, 
their reputation for veracity is unim- 
peachable, and has been jealously 
guarded by them since they first engaged 
in business many years ago. The fur 
trade has explicit confidence in their 
statements. The weights of skins which 
they have promulgated are as accurate 
as their classification of the skins which 
they publish to the trade. The fact 
that the island weights and the Lampson 
weights coincide is conclnsive that the 
island weights were correctly taken. 
Surely the committee can conclude that 



Then, under cross-examination, 
he admits that the London classi- 
fication is on measurements, not 
weights, and based on the sizes of 
the skins. 

Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Fraser, if I may in- 
form the committee, makes a statement of 
the weight, breadth, and length of the 
skins 

Mr. Elliott. Yes. 

Mr. Lembkey. But states nothing 
whatever as to the number of skins in any 
catch. 

Mr. Elliott. That is all covered in 
other testimony. 

Mr. Lembkey. Is it? 

The Chairman. What is the question 
to this witness? 

Mr. Elliott. I asked if he does not 
know that the sizes are established by 
measurements? 

The Chairman - . Just answer that ques- 
tion. Do you know it? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have been so informed. 

Mr. Elliott. Do you doubt it? 

Mr. Lembkey. Oh, no. 

Mr. Elliott. Nor do I. (Hearing No. 
9. p. 441. Apr. 13. 1912.) 



Lembkey tells the committee 
that they classify sealskins by 
measurement of size, and not 
weight, in Lampson's sales. 

Mr. Young. Let me before you pass 
from thai ask this: You weigh these 
green skins on the islands, and then 
measure them in the markets in London. 
What is your purpose in weighing, and 
what is their purpose in measuring? 

Mr. Lembkey. Our purpose in weigh- 
ing the skins on the island is to get them 
within the weights prescribed by the 
regulations. Our regulations prescribe 
maximum and minimum weights. Those 
weights are 5 pounds 

Mr. Young. Does that relate to the 
question of age? 

Mr. Lembkey. Five pounds and 8J 
pounds. 

Mr. Young. Passing from the weight, 
in London what is the determining pur- 
pose in measuring? 



244 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



the charge of malfeasance ran not lie 
upon the practice of taking skins as it 
has been carried on during the years 
mentioned. (Hearing No. 9, p. 376, 
Mar. 1. 1912.) 



Lembkey swears that 100 skins 
in 1904 were lighter after salting. 



Mr. Lembkey. As a matter of fact, con- 
trary to general belief, sealskins before 
salting weigh slightly more than after- 
wards. This is well known to practical 
taxidermists. The effect of salt on skins 
is to extract the animal juices in large 
measure and to deter the propagation of 
bacteria which would eventually destroy 
the skin. That the natural juices in the 
green pelt are extracted through the 
action of the salt is shown by the stiffer 
and harder texture of the skin after it has 
been in contact with the salt for a suffi- 
cient period. The loss of weight in a 
pelt due to' salting is perhaps small, but 
nevertheless definite and appreciable. 

In order to test this very matter, on 
July 26, 1904, 100 green sealskins nearly 
dry were weighed by me on St. Paul and 
then placed in salt. Their combined 
green weight was 644J pounds. Five 
days thereafter they were taken out of 
salt and reweighed, when their combined 
weight was 643J pounds, representing a 
net loss of 1 pound in the aggregate 
weight of 100 skins. (H. Doc. No. 93, 
62d Cong., 1st sess., p. 79.) (Hearing 
No. 9, p. 416, Mar. 11, 1912.) 

But Lembkey forgets it one 
month later. 

Mr. Elliott. Mr. Lembkey, you say 
you never have weighed these skins after 
you have salted them? You have never 
weighed them? 

Mr. Lembkey. I have never weighed 
them after the salting on the islands; no, 
sir. (Hearing No. 9, p. 446, Apr. 13, 1912; 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



Mr. Lembkey. They measure them. 
I fancy 

Mr. Young. Are they trying to arrive 
at the question of age, too? 

Mr. Lembkey. They are trying to get 
the size of the skin or the amount of fur 
on the animal. 

Mr. Young. They care nothing about 
the question of age there? 

Mr. Lembkey. Nothing at all. 

Mr. Young. That is all I care to ask. 
(Hearing No. 9, p. 448, Apr. 13, 1912.) 

But Lembkey's official record 
on the island, of 1904, shows that 
these skins were heavier. 

[Official journal of the Government agent in charge 
of Seal Islands: St. Paul's Island, Alaska: 

Saturday, July 23, 1904— On July 18, 
107 skins taken on Tolstoi were weighed 
and salted. To-day they were hauled 
out of the trench and reweighed. At the 
time of killing they weighed 705 pounds, 
and on being taken out they weighed 759J 
pounds, a gain in salting of 54£ pounds, 
or one-half pound per skin (p . 149) . (This 
entry was made by Lembkey himself, as 
above quoted, and copied July 22, 1913, 
by the agents H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com- 
merce.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



245 



Lembkey says the holluschickie 
are never driven from shelter on 
the breed ins; rookeries. 



Chief Special Agent Lembkey: Further- 
more, the 3-year-olds, having passed the 
age of puberty, are not found on the 
hauling grounds during the fall, but are 
hauled among the cows on the rookeries 
when they can not be driven. This is an 
additional safeguard against their killing, 
and of itself would disprove any allegation 
that these marked seals are subsequently 
killed. (Report, Dec. 14, 1906, p. 13; 
Sen. Doc. 376, 60 th Cong., 1st sees.) 



Lembkey swears that the offi- 
cial publication of Elliott's 1874 
report never reached the files of 
his office on the seal islands. 



San Francisco, November 15, 1911. 
Mr. W. I. Lembkey. 

Dear Sir: In compliance with your 
request, I have looked over the published 
account of the fur-seal investigation, and 
I can truthfully state that I consider the 
testimony of H. W. Elliott to be design- 
edly false and misleading, especially that 
part referring to the season of 1890. 

Referring to the scale of weights and 
measurements of sealskins, which he 
claims was introduced by himself and the 
late Dr. Mclntyre, I have never heard of 



But his assistant says they are 
so driven — are "pulled, out from 
among the cows." The St. Paul 
native sealers confirm Judge in a 
signed statement, July 23, 1913: 

Assistant Agent James Judge. Seals. — 
Four hundred and fifty-eight seals of the 
quota of 500 allowed the natives of this 
island for food were obtained. The thst 
drive was made on October 19, from 
Staraya Artel, and 220 seals were killed; 
209 small, sixty-five 3-year-olds, five 
4-year-olds, six 5-year-olds, two 6-year- 
olds, and 4 branded were turned away. 
Three other drives were made as follows: 
October 31, Staraya Artel rookery, 148 
seals were killed, twelve 3-year-olds re- 
leased; November 9, Staraya Artel and 
north, 44 seals killed; November 16, 
North rookerv, 25 seals killed; October 20 
to November 10, Zapadni Guard?, 21 
seals killed. 

The last three drives were made up 
entirely of seals pulled out from among the 
cows by the natives, and as very careful 
selection had taken place on the rookery 
very few were turned away from the 
killing field. (Report, June 3, 1907, 
Sen. Doc. 376, p. 105. 60th Cong., 1st 
sess.) 

Question. Did you ever use whistles 
when you drove those young seals out 
from the shelter of the rookeries? 

Answer. No. They used to use them, 
but do not use them now. They just run 
in and yell and clap their hands. 

Question. Did you ever report that 
work to the Government agents? 

Answer. Yes; it was always reported to 
the Government, agents. (Statements of 
the native sealers, St. Paul's Island, 
July 23, 1913; made to agents, H. Com. 
Exp., Dept. Commerce, p. 98, rept. Aim-. 
31, 1913.) 

But it was on the official files, 
for in 1886 the chief special 
agent so reports to the Secre- 
tary of the United States Treas- 
ury. 

Office of Special Agent 
Treasury Department, 
St. Paul Island, Alaska, 

July 31, 1886. 
Sir: I herewith transmit my report of 
the operations of the seal islands for the 
past year, and up to the close of this seal- 
ing season . 
* * * -si- 

Mr. Elliott embraced in his report of 
1874 a measurement by him of the breed- 
ing rookeries on this island, made July 
10-18, 1872, since which time no measure- 



246 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



its existence, nor have I ever heard men- 
tion of it, during my long residence on 
the seal islands, where for many years 
I was immediately connected with the 
taking and curing of sealskins, dating 
from the spring of 1875 to the expiration 
of the Alaska Commercial Co.'s lease, in 
1890. 

Yours, respectfully, 

J. C. Redpath. 

Mr. Lembkey. Mr. Redpath landed on 
the islands first in 1875, one year after the 
alleged promulgation of the Elliott table 
of weights and measurements. 

I regret that Mr. Redpath is in San 
Francisco, and therefore is not able to 
attend these hearings. Upon my return 
from Alaska this fall, I obtained and for- 
warded to Mr. Redpath a series of hearings 
of this committee held last summer, with 
the request that, after reading, he inform 
me whether the list of weights and meas- 
urements which Mr. Elliott claims was 
promulgated in 1872-1874 on the islands 
was, in truth, so published. His reply 
bears out my belief that Mr. Elliott simply 
has attempted to foist upon this commit- 
tee a piece of manufactured evidence 
bearing a date so far back in the history 
of the islands that no one living would be 
able to testify as to its truth or falsity. 
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 404, 426, Apr. 13, 
1912.) 

Lembkey (and Bureau of Fish- 
eries) quotes Veniaminov and mis- 
quotes Elliott, to deceive. 

Mr. Lembkey. The cause of this great 
decline of seal life diuins» the Russian 
regime was due to the reckless killing on 
land not only of bachelor seals, such as are 
killed to-day, but to the killing of female 
seals wherever they could be found. And, 
strange to say, the very evidence of this 
wanton slaughter of females can be found 
in Mr. Elliott's reports, although he is 
very careful to keep such facts in abey- 
ance when furnishing his deadly parallel 
of the destruction caused by land killing 
then and now. * * * Let us now 
make a few quotations from Elliott to 
show just what was the cause of the Rus- 
sian scarcity of seals. * * * Let us 
quote Mr. Elliott: 

A translation of Veniaminov, whom I 
have mentioned already, * * * occurs 
in Mr. Elliott's monograph, his first report 
nn the seal islands. * * * 

In that translation we find the following 
quotation from the Russian writer: 

"From the time of the discovery of the 
Pribilof Islands until 1805 the taking of 
fur seals progressed. * * * Cows were 
taken in the drives and killed, and were 
also driven from the rookeries, where 
they were slaughtered * * *. " (Hear- 
ing on II. R. 1671, Feb. 3, 1912, p. 114, 
H. Com. Foreign Affairs.) 



ment has been made, as far as the records 
of this office show. 

* * * -* 

Geo. R. Tingle, 
Treasury Agent in Charge. 

To the Secretary of the Treasury, 
Washington, D. C. 

(H. Doc. 175, pp. 204, 205, 54th Cong., 

1st sess.) 



Elliott's answer proves his at- 
tempt to deceive. 

Mr. Elliott. On page 143 of my mono- 
graph, from which those extracts were 
read (by Lembkey), I made this signifi- 
cant and fair statement of what I thought 
of the same, to wit: 

' ' I translate this chapter of Veniaminov 's 
without abridgment, although it is full 
of errors, to show that while the Russians 
gave this matter evidently much thought 
at headquarters, yet they failed to send 
some one onto the ground who, by first 
making himself acquainted with the hab- 
its of the seals, etc. 

"Why did Mr. Lembkey fail to read the 
above? The idea of making me responsi- 
ble for a series of loose statements that I 
literally credit to another man, and ex- 
pressly define them as such, is, I submit to 
the commiitee, a suppression of the truth 
by Mr. Lembkey himself, and he, not I, 
is guilty of that offense." (Hearing oa 
H. R. 1671, Feb. 4, 1912, pp. 146, 147. 
H. Com. Foreign Affairs.) 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



247 



VII. 

The statements in the official reports of Dr. David Starr Jordan, presidenl of Advisory 

Hoard on Fur Seal Service. United States Bureau of Fisheries, who is one of the 
experts cited to the United States Senate Committee on Conservation of National 
Resources, January It. 1911, and to the House Committee on Expenditures in Depart- 
ment of Commerce and Labor, .June 9, L911, by Secretary Charles Nagel as his authority 
for killing seals in violation of law and regulations: 
Mr. Bowers. The advisory board, fur-seal service, consists of the following: 
Dr. David Starr Jordan, president of Stanford University, who was chairman of the 
International Fur-Seal Commissions of 1896 and 1897, appointed in pursuance of the 
treaty of February 29, 1892. and whose published report in four volumes is the most 
comprehensive, thorough, and valuable treatise that has ever been published on all 
matters pertaining to the fur seal and the seal islands. Dr. Jordan is the most dis- 
tinguished and best known naturalist in the world. (Hearing No. 2. p. 109. June 9, 
1911.) 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



Dr. Jordan falsifies Yanovsky's 
official report to the Secretary of 
the Treasury to justify the un- 
truth stated in re ''Russian killing 
of male and female seals alike." 



At once on assuming control of the 
islands the Russian-American Co. put 
a stop * * *. They still continued 
to kill males and females alike. The 
injury to the herd naturally continued. 

In 1820 Yanovsky, an agent of the 
Imperial Government, after an inspection 
of the fur-seal rookeries, called attention 
to the practice of killing the young ani- 
mals, leaving only the adults as breeders. 
He writes: ''If any of the young breeders 
are not killed by the autumn they are 
sure to be killed in the following spring." 
From this course of action he concludes 
that the industry decreases every year in 
volume, and may in the course of time 
be extinguished entirely. (Fur Seal In- 
vestigations, pt. 1, p. 25, 1898.) 

Dr. Jordan declares that the 
Russians ruined the Pribilof fur- 
seal herd by an indiscriminate 
killing of female and male seals, 
1800-1834. 



They (the Russian-American Co.) still 
continued to kill males and females alike. 
The injury to the herd naturally con- 
tinued. * * * (Fur-S-al Investiga- 
tions, pt. 1. p. 25. IS9S. i 



The text of Yanovsky's report, 
1820, which denies the statement 
of Dr. Jordan in re Russian killing 
of female seals. Jordan has used 
the word "breeders" for "bach- 
elors" in Yanovsky's statement, 
and thus falsifies it 

In his report No. 41 of February 25, 
1820, Mr. Yanovsky, in giving an account 
of his inspection of the operations on the 
islands of St. Paul and St. George, ob- 
serves that "every year the young" 
bachelor seals are killed, and that only 
the cows, siekatchie, and half siekatchie 
are left to propagate the species. It fol- 
lows that only the old seals are left, while 
if any of the bachelors are left alive in 
the autumn they are sure to be killed the 
next spring. The consequence is the 
number of seals obtained diminishes 
every year, and it is certain that the 
species will in time become extinct." 
(Appendix to Case of the United States, 
Fur Seal Arbitration (Letter No. 6, p. 58, 
Mar. 5, 1821), 1893.) 



But Dr. Jordan published a 
translation of Bishop Veniami- 
nov, who explicitly denies that 
killing by the Russians, 1800- 
1834, when the seal herd was de- 
stroyed. 

The taking of fur seals commences in 
ihe latter days of September * * *. 
The siekatchie and the old females hav- 
ing been removed, the others divided in- 
to small squads, are carefully driven to 
the place where they are to lie killed, 
sometimes more than 10 versts distant. 

When brought to the killing grounds 
the seals are rested for an hour, or more, 
according to circumstances, and then 
killed with a club. * * * . 



248 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Dr. Jordan denies the appear- 
ance on the hauling grounds of 
the yearlings, and in the killing' 
drives before "the middle of 
July." 

* * * In fact the records of the 
drives show that it is only after the mid- 
dle of July that the yearlings begin to 
arrive in numbers, and by the time the 
killing season is over. * * * (Fur- 
Seal Investigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 99.) 



Jordan asserts and denies the 
fact that the yearling seals haul 
out, as a class, on the islands be- 
fore the middle of July annually, 
and therefore are not killed. 



From the killing during the present 
season (1896) 15.000 animals too small to 
kill were turned back. As in the case of 
the young bulls, some of these, perhaps 
many, were driven and redriven, several 
drives being made from each hauling 
ground during the season. The actual 
number represented by this total of re- 
jected animals can not be exactly deter- 
mined. From this it would seem neces- 
sary to suppose that by no means all the 
younger seals appear on the hauling 
grounds during the killing season. In 
fact, the records of the drives show that it 
is only after the middle of July that the 
yearlings begin to arrive in numbers, and 
by the time the killing season is over the 
great majority of the killable seals are 
secured, leaving the population of the 
hauling grounds almost exclusively year- 



Of those 1 year old, the males are 
separated from the females and killed 
while tin- Latter arc driven carefully back 
to the beach, (Fur-Seal Investigations, 
pt. ::, 1898, p. 222; translation of "Bishop 
Veniaminov by Leonhard Stejneger.) 

But Chief Special Agent Goff 
asserts in an official entry that 
yearlings are in the drives as 
early as June 18. 



[P. 229: Official Journal, Government Agent, St. 
Paul Island, 1890.] 

Wednesday, June 18, 1890. — Made a 
drive from Tolstoi and Middle Hill; killed 
274. Turned away 19 half grown bulls: 
as many yearlings as choice seals, killed 
(i. e., 274), and half as many 2-year- 
olds as yearlings were allowed to return to 
the sea. This is a fair average of the 
work so far this season. (Chas. J. Goff, 
U. S. Chief Sp'l Agent in charge Seal 
Islands.) 

Monday. June 23, 1890.— (p. 231.) 
The N. A. C. Co. made a drive from Tol- 
stoi and Middle Hill, killing 521 seals. 
Seventy-five percent of the seals driven to 
the village were turned back into the sea, 
10 per cent of these were 2-year-olds, 
balance vearlings. (C. J. Goff.) 

Tuesday, June 24, 1890.— (p. 231.) 
N. A. C. Co., made a drive from Reef and 
Tolstoi, and killed 426 seals; about 65 
per cent of this drive was turned back 
into the sea, about all of these were 
vearlines. 

rc. j. Goff.) 

But sworn proof is below that 
the yearlings do haul out as a 
class, and in the earliest June 
drives, and are never absent from 
them thereafter during the sea- 
son. 

Mr. Elliott. Now as to yearlings on the 
islands. Here is an official report de- 
tailed day after day during the killing 
season of 1890, put on the files of the 
Treasury Department, and printed, and 
until the 1st of December, 1907. not a line 
had been issued from the Government 
officialism in charge of this business — not 
a line that says a single record of this 
work as to the killing on those islands in 
1890 is improperly stated here. The only 
objection they make to it was that I offi- 
cially assumed that driving these young 
and old seals hurt them. They claimed 
it did not hurt them, but that it did them 
good. We will leave that open. But the 
killing has hurt them; they admit that 
now officially. Let me read, on page 170: 

"Monday," June 23, 1890. * * * 
Eleven pods of 561 animals driven up; 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



249 



lings and 2-year-olds. (Fur Seal Inves- 
tigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 99. Dr. D. S. 
Jordan. Rept. Feb. 24, 1898.) 



110 of them killed or one-fifth taken, or 80 
per cent turned away. All under 7- 
pound skins, with the exception of a few 
wigged 4-year-olds and a dozen or two old 
bulls. This gives a fair average of the 
whole drive to-day, some 2,500 animals, 
since 518 only were taken. 

"* * * Those turned away (nearly 
2,000) were 95 per cent at least 'long' and 
'short' yearlings." 

That has never been disputed to this 
hour. 

"June 21, 1890. * * * At 7 a. m. I 
went down to the killing grounds and fol- 
lowed the podding and clubbing of the 
entire drive brought up from the Reef 
crest and Zoltoi bluffs this morning. The 
Zoltoi pod arrived on the ground long be- 
fore the Reef pod — two hours sooner. It 
was made up largely of polseecatchie and 
yearlings. 

"* * * Seventy-five per cent of this 
drive was rejected. Every 3 and smooth 
4-year-old taken and every long 2-year- 
old. Nothing under or over that grade. 

"The seals released this morning were 
exclusively yearlings, 'short' 2-year-olds, 
and the 5 and 6 year old half bulls or 
polseecatchie. No 'long' 2-year-old 
escaped, and so, therefore, many bh and 
6 pound skins will appear in this catch. 

"In the afternoon I took a survey of 
Lukannon Bay and its hauling grounds. 
* * * Thence over to Tolstoi sand 
dunes, where I saw about 600 or 700 year- 
lings, conspicuous by their white bellies. 



Jordan condemns the killing of 
yearlings bv the old lessees in 

1889: 



For a time these more rigorous methods 
had the desired effect, but the scarcity of 
bachelors as a result of the decreasing 
birth rates made it necessary finally to 
lower the age for killable seals, so as to in- 
clude, first, the 2-year-olds, and in the end 
many of the larger yearlings, in order to 
secure the requisite 100,000 skins. By 



'•June 26, 1890 (on p. 174). I walked 
over to the Xapadnie killing grounds this 
morning, arriving there about 9 o'clock. 
The drivers had collected a squad of about 
340 holluschickie, which were clubbed 
thus — total 344 number driven, and num- 
ber taken, 97, or about 72 per cent unfit to 
take, being made up chiefly of yearlings, 
'short' 2-year-olds, and 'wigged' 4-year- 
olds, and 5-year up to 7-year old bulls." 

I knew what I was talking about, and so 
did the lessees. They rejected the year- 
lings and the short 2-vear-olds. (Hearing 
No. 2, pp. 40. 41, June 8. 1911, II. Com. 
Exp. Dept. C. and L.) 

But he approves the killing of 
yearlings by the new lessees, 1896, 
in violation of the rules ordered 
May 14, 1896 (prohibiting that 
killing) . 

Last year (1896) the hauling grounds of 
the Pribilof Islands yielded 30,000 killa- 
ble seals. During the present season a 
quota of only 20,890 could be taken. To 
get these it was necessary to drive more 
frequently and cull the animals more 
closely than has been done since 1889. 
The killing season was closed on July 27, 



250 



FUR-SEAL HERD OE ALASKA. 



these methods it. happened in L889 that 
practically the whole bachelor herd of 
four years and under down to the year- 
lings was wiped out. The result was the 
abnormal drop to 21,000 in the quota of 
1890. * * * 

It is not the intention here to justify the 
methods of killing employed in the clos- 
ing years of the Alaska Commercial Co. 
Such killing ought never to have been 
allowed. * * * (Fur Seal investiga- 
tions, pt. 1, p. 124, 1898.) 

For another part of the time this quota 
was too great, and this led to waste of an- 
other sort by involving the premature 
killing of the yearling and 2-year-old 
bachelors. (Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 
I. p. 193.) 

Dr. Jordan denies the appear- 
ance of female yearlings in the 
drives with male yearlings. 



There remains to be recorded the ar- 
rival of the 1 and 2 year old females. 
Their brothers are found to arrive at the 
islands about the middle of July and 
spend their time on the hauling grounds. 
Whether the young females come with 
them to the Adcinity of the islands or are 
associated with them on the migrations is 
not known. But they do not associate 
with them to any great extent on the 
islands. (Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 1, 
1898, p. 66.) 



Jordan makes denial of knowl- 
edge that the male and female 
yearling seals haul out together, 
or come together on the islands. 



There remains to be recorded the arrival 
of the 1 and 2 year old females. Their 
brothers, we found, arrive at the islands 
about the middle of July and spend their 
time on the hauling grounds. Whether 
the young females come with them to the 
vicinity of the islands, or are associated 
with them on the migrations is not known. 
But they do not associate with them to 
any great extent on the islands. (Fur 
Seal Investigations, pt. 1, 1898, p. 66.) 



1896. This year it was extended on St. 
Paul to the 71 h of August, and on St. 
George to August 11. The quota to be 
taken was left to our discretion and every 
opportunity was given the lessees to take 
the full product of the hauling grounds. 
Notwithstanding all their efforts, the 
quota of 1897 shows a decrease of 30 per 
cent in the class of killable seals, and 
when we take into account the increased 
number of drives and the extension of the 
times of driving, the difference between 
the two seasons is even greater. (Fur Seal 
Investigations: Preliminary report of 
1897: Treasury Doc. No. 1994, p. IS, Nov. 
1, 1897.) 



But Lembkey, with 13 years' 
experience, reports that the fe- 
males do come out as yearlings 
with male yearlings. 

On July 1 there were three yearling- 
seals in the drives at North East Point. 
One of them, a typical specimen, was 
knocked clown at my direction, to ascer- 
tain the weight of the skin. It was found 
to be a female. 

Special attention was paid by me to the 
presence of yearlings in the drives. The 
first seen was on June 28 in a drive from 
Zapadnie. It was so small that it was 
killed to determine its weight. It was a 
male. * * * (Rept. W. I. Lembkey, 
Sept. 1, 1904, p. 77, App. A, H. Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 
1911.) 

But Dr. Jordan's men take a 
male and a female yearling seal 
out of a drive from the hauling 
grounds, and send them as speci- 
mens to Stanford University. 

Sunday, September 27, 1896.— (P. 12.) 
A barren cow shot on reef; skin taken for 
Stanford University. (P. 13.) The skin 
of a yearling bull smothered in the food 
drive from Lukannow ' taken for Stanford 
University. (P. 14.) A yearling cow 
shot for purposes of dissection out of the 
drive from Lukannon. Skin taken for 
Stanford University. (Official Journal 
of the U. S. Agent, St. Pauls Island, 
entered on p. 53, and copied, July 24, 
1913, by A. F. Gallagher.) 



1 That drive "from Lukannon" was made on July 27, 1896, from which those yearling male] and 
female seals were secured, as above entered. — H. W. E. 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



251 



Jordan makes denial of the 
male and female yearlings hauling 
out together. 



There remains yet to be recorded the 
arrival of the young 1 and 2 year old 
females. Their brothers, we found, 
arrive at the islands about the middle of 
July, and spend their time on the hauling 
grounds. Whether the young females 
come with them to the vicinity of the 
islands or are associated with them on the 
migrations is not known. But they do 
not associate with them to any great 
extent on the islands. (Fur Seal Inves- 
tigations, pt. 1. 1898, p. 66.) 



Jordan denies seeing any year- 
ling seals on the hauling grounds 
up to July 25, 1896. 



July 25, 1906. — At the time of our first 
enumeration, on Ketavie, Tolstoi, and the 
Lagoon * * * no yearlings nor 2-year- 
olds had appeared. Nor am I sure that 
any have appeared since, unless yearling 
cows are among the bachelors. I have not 
seen one, and I am not sure that I have 
seen a 2-year-old (cow). (Fur Seal Inves- 
tigations, pt, 2, 1898, p. 341.) 



Lembkey, with 13 years' expe- 
rience, swears that the male and 
female yearlings do haul out to- 
gether. 

Mr. Lembkey. This habit of annually 
migrating from the place of its birth to 
southerly waters can be explained in a 
few words. Probably 90 per cent of all 
female breeders give birth to their pups 
within a period of three weeks, from June 
25 to July 15 of each year. These pups 
remain on the islands until about Novem- 
ber 1 to 15 of each year, and then depart 
southward. These pups return to the 
islands the following year practically in a 
mass about the 25th of July, and then are 
known as yearlings. While a few indi- 
viduals might arrive among the first 
bachelors of the season, the bulk of the 
yearlings arrive in a mass about the 25th 
of July, as stated. 

If these yearling seals do not arrive until 
after nearly the whole catch of the skins 
is obtained, how is it possible to compose 
the bulk of that catch of the skins of these 
voung animals, as alleged by Mr. Elliott? 
(Hearing No. 9, pp. 412/ 413, 415, Mar. 
1, 1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor. ) 

Lembkey swears that he can 
not tell them apart by looking at 
them only. 

Mr. Lembkey. But the younger 
females, and especially the 2-year-olds, 
are almost exactly similar in appearance 
to the males of the same age, and it 
requires an expert to distinguish between 
them. I can state that with 13 years of 
experience, I can not by any means 
always determine the sex of these animals 
while they are alive and when they 
appear on the killing field. (Hearing 
No. 9, pp. 377, 378, Mar. 1, 1912: H. 
Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

But ever since he landed, July 8, 
first on the islands, he has seen 
yearling seals on the hauling 
grounds, and notes that sight, as 
quoted below. 

July 11. — Zapadnie Rookery, St. 
George Island: The yearling bachelors 
are to be seen in little pods of half a dozen 
or so. * * * Where the bachelor 
yearlings are at a distance from interfer- 
ence, they play among themselves like 
little dogs. * * * Similar comparisons 
might be made for the 2-year-olds, which 
are bigger than the yearlings, nearly as 



252 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Jordan's own associate will not 
vouch for his truthfulness. 

Dr. Evermann. 4. The assumption 
that the rookeries are fullest between July 
10 and 20 "every year, not a day earlier, 
not many days later, " is not a safe assump- 
tion; in fact, it is not true. 

Mr. Elliott. Are you quoting Dr. Jor- 
dan? 

Dr. Evermann. I am quoting some 
things that Dr. Jordan has said. 

Mr. Elliott. Is Dr. Jordan a man of 
truth? 

The Chairman. You are quoting from 
Dr. Jordan? 

Mr. Elliott. I want to find if Dr. Jor- 
dan is a man of truth. 

The Chairman. That is not for the wit- 
ness to determine. 

Mr. Elliott. He is assailing me in that 
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan. 

The Chairman. The witness can not 
say whether he is telling the truth or 
whether he is not. 

Mr. Elliott. I would like to have it go 
in the record whether he considers Dr. 
Jordan a man of truth. 

The Chairman. The witness will pro- 
ceed. (Hearing No. 10, p. 580, Apr. 20. 
1912, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. & Labor.) 

Jordan declares that up to July 
25 he has not seen a virgin cow or 
nubile on the rookeries: 



At the time of our first enumeration, on 
Keetavie, Tolstoi, and the Lagoon, the 
rookeries were at their height, with more 
cows present than at any one time since. 
But all were not in, and no yearlings nor 
2-year-olds had appeared. * * * I 
have never seen one, and I am not sure 
that I have seen a 2-year-old. (D. S. Jor- 
dan, July 25, 1897.) (Fur Seal Investi- 
gations, pt, 2, pt. 341, 1898.) 



large as the cows. ( Fur Seal Investiga- 
tions, pt. 2, 1898, p. 300.) 

July 13. — Ketavie Rookery, St. Pauls 
Island: The cows are almost as cowardly 
as the yearling bachelors * * * (p. 
302). 

July 13. — Ardignen Rookery, St. Pauls 
Island: On Ardignen, one unlucky year- 
ling male is seen to invade a harem, and 
get routed out by the hoarse and furious 
old bull * * * (p. 302). 

July 15. — Lukannon Rookery, St. Paula 
Island: On Lukannon was seen a little 
cow, apparently a 2-year-old, with fea- 
tures of a yearling, and slender * * * 
(p. 314). ' 

July 16. — Northeast Point Rookery, 
St. Pauls Island: It appeared to be a large 
yearling, just getting its permanent 
teeth (p. 316). 

July 16. — Reef Rookery, St. Pauls Is- 
land: These are apparently virgin 2-year- 
olds * * * small side of the big bull 
(p. 319). 



But his associates, Clark and 
Lucas, have seen virgin cows or 
nubiles ever since July 3 on the 
rookeries : 

Lukannon, July 3, 1897. — A small ani- 
mal already noted * * * a small 2- 
year-old is in a harem of 16 cows under the 
cliff. (F. A. Lucas, p. 544, pt. 2.) 

Keetavie, July 5, 1897. — A little animal, 
probably a 2-year-old cow, is in a harem 
under the cliff. (G. A. Clark, p. 547, 
pt. 2.) 

Lukannon, July 10, 1897. — Under the 
cliffs at Lukannon are five little animals. 
* * * They look exactly like 2-year- 
old virgin cows. (F. A. Lucas, p. 551, 

Pt- 2 -) . ., 

Zapadni, July 20, 1897. — It is evident 

that the 2-year-olds are present in con- 
siderable numbers. (G. A. Clark, p. 566, 
pt. 2.) (Fur Seal Investigations, pt. 2, 
pp. 544-566, 1898.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OP ALASKA. 



253 



Jordan declares that the year- 
hugs can not be told apart as to 
sex. Two seasons' experience: 

Near by were two small seals in charge 
of a young half bull. The smaller one 
was shot and proved to be a yearling bull. 
It had all the appearances of a female, and 
Jacob said it was. The sacrifice of this 
yearling was valuable in showing how 
easy it is to be deceived * * * there 
does not seem to be any characteristic 
which will surely determine the sex of the 
young animals other than those of the 
sexual organs themselves. (Fur Seal In- 
vestigation, pt. 2, p. 356, 1898.) 

Lembkey says they can not be 
distinguished apart as to sex, 13 
seasons' experience teaches him. 

Mr. Lembkey. All the killable seals of 
those driven. 

Q. But they were all yearlings? — A. 
They were all yearlings; no full-grown 
bulls . Those driven were immature seals. 

Q. The statement has been made that 
it is hardly possible to distinguish the 
male and the female at that age? — A. At 
2 years old? 

Q. Yes; what is your opinion? — A. 
There is considerable difficulty in distin- 
guishing the young males and females. 
There is considerable difficulty in distin- 
guishing the male and the female yearling. 
They are both of the same size and general 
formation. It is almost impossible for 
anybody not an expert to pick them out 
and distinguish between them, and it is 
rather difficult, even for an expert; but 
of the 2-year-olds the females are not on 
the hauling grounds; they are on the 
breeding rookeries for their initial im- 
pregnation. The.2 -year-old males, on the 
other hand, are on thehauling-out grounds. 
(Hearing on S. 9959, Feb. 4, 1911, Com- 
mittee on Cons. National Resources, 
U. S. Senate, p. 10 ("Dixon hearing"), 
Rothermel reprint, May 20, 1911, H. Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But Jordan says the female 
yearlings do not haul out with the 
males (yearlings) . He knows be- 
cause he examines them. 

One by one the little yearlings had been 
drawn off until 17 had been examined. 
All were bachelors. * * * Therefore 
there is nothing so far to show that the 
yearling females associate with the males 
on the hauling grounds, at least at this 
season. (Lukannon rookery, Aug. 1, 
1896, p. 365.) 



While Lembkey says they do 
haul out together. He knows be- 
cause he kills and examines them. 

On July 1 (1904), there were three year- 
ling seals in the drive at Northeast Point. 
One of them, a typical specimen, was 
knocked down at my direction to ascer- 
tain the weight of the skin. It was found 
to be a female. (Rept. Sept. 7, 1904, to 
Sec. Com. and Labor, Lembkey, p. 77, 
Appendix A, H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. 
and Labor, June 24, 1911.) 



254 



FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



Jordan denies the appearance 
of any bulls under 8 years old on 
the breeding grounds : 

Leland Stanford 
Junior University, 
Office op the President, 
Stanford University, Gal., 

January 16, 1906. 

lion. Theodore Roosevelt, 

The White House, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I beg leave to acknowledge 
the receipt of three documents, sent by 
Mr. Loeb, bearing on the fur-seal ques- 
tion, viz: (1) A memorandum to the 
President from Secretary Metcalf, (2) the 
printed report of the Secretary of the De- 
partment of Commerce and Labor, and 
(3) a letter addressed to Mr. Loeb by Mr. 
Henry W. Elliott. 

I notice the notation of Mr. Elliott on 
the opening page of the report. He avers 
that the reduction of 58 per cent of male 
life on the breeding grounds is due alone 
to close killing on land since 1904. This 
is simply absurd. There could be no 
male life on the breeding grounds that 
was not 8 years old or over. * * * 
David Starr Jordan. 

(Appendix A, p. 332; June 24, 1911. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 

Jordan asserts that Elliott's 
date for the "height of the sea- 
son" is not true. 



4. The assumption that the rookeries 
are fullest between July 10 and 20 "every 
year, not a day earlier, not many days 
later," is not a safe assumption; in fact, 
it is not true. 

Mr. Elliott. Are you quoting Dr. Jor- 
dan? 

Dr. Evermann. I am quoting some 
things that Dr. Jordan has said. 

Mr. Elliott. Is Dr. Jordan a man of 
truth? 

The Chairman. You are quoting from 
Dr. Jordan? 

Mr. Elliott. I want to find if Dr. Jor- 
dan is a man of truth. 

The Chairman. That is not for the wit- 
ness to determine. 

Mr. Elliott. He is assailing me in that 
matter and quoting Dr. Jordan. 

The Chairman. The witness can not 
say whether he is telling the truth or 
whether he is not. 

Mr. Elliott. I would like to have it go 
in the record whether he considers Dr. 
Jordan a man of truth. 

The Chairman. The witness will pro- 
ceed. (Hearing No. 9, p. 580, Apr. 20, 
1912; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and La- 
bor.) 



But his own men and trained 
naturalist finds many of them 
busy as breeding bulls. 

July 17. — I walked to Zapadni rookery 
and made a count of harems with Mr. Chi- 
chester. The part of this rookery which 
in 1896-97 extended along the beach 
toward the watchhouse has entirely dis- 
appeared. The portion under the cliff 
has also shrunk. 

Contrary to our usual experience with 
the young bull, a gray one not over 6 
years old not only held a harem of three 
cows in a territory backed by idle bulls, 
but refused to yield ground to us in our 
efforts to reach a favorable observation 
point. In addition to his youth, the bull 
was handicapped by a stiff foreflipper. 

Many young gray bulls are noted in the 
rookery and about it, and particularly in 
the larger harems are many of the 2-year- 
old cows. (Rept. Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 
30, 1909, to Secretary Nagel; Appendix 
A, pp. 883, 892, June 24, 1911; H. Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But Jordan's own "trained" 
expert says that Elliott's dates are 
correct, and he quotes them as 
such. 

The breeding season, beginning about 
June 10 and extending to about August 
10, reaches a climax, known as the 
"height of the season," about the 12th 
to the 18th of July. At this time the 
greatest number of cows are present, the 
harem discipline is rigid, and each family 
is definitely marked out. After this pe- 
riod the cows and pups scatter out and 
intermingle, the mother seals spend 
longer time at sea, the pups learn to swim, 
and the harem system breaks up. 

Harem counts. — The counts of harems 
or breeding families were all made within 
the period of rookery life known as the 
"height of the season," between the dates 
of July 12 and 18, these dates correspond- 
ing in general to those on which the simi- 
lar counts for 1897 were made. (Rept. 
Geo. A. Clark, Sept. 30, 1909, to Secretary 
Nagel; Appendix A, pp. 835, 838, June 
24, 1911; H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



255 



Elliott denies the "rights" of 
the pelagic sealers, and hopes that 
they will never get a penny for 
them : 



17 Grace Avenue, 
Lakeicood, Ohio, November 3, 1909. 



Dt 



Jordan hopes that Elliott will 
approve ''an effort" which will 
enable the pelagic sealers "to 
realize" on their rights": 

Leland Stanford 

Junior University, 
Stanford University, Cal., 

November 6, 1909. 
Mr. Henry Wood Elliott. 

( 'level and, Ohio. 
Dear Sir: I have received from the 
Bureau of Fisheries a letter from you to 
Secretary Nagel, concerning the author- 
ship of a chart which was inserted in my 
preliminarv report on the fur seals in 
1896. 

* * * * 

I take this opportunity to express the 
hope that you may approve of the effort to 
establish a modus vivendi fot a time, 
without killing on land or sea, until the 
matter of pelagic sealing can be finally 
settled. To lease the islands again as 
things are would be a farce. I see some 
hope that an energetic discussion with 
Japan would be successful, and the Vic- 
toria people are anxious to realize on their 
rights. 

Very truly, yours, 

David Starr Jordan. 

To deceive Congress and influence pending legislation, Dr. Jordan 
sends the following false and defamatory telegram, which was used 
on the floor of the House of Representatives February 7, 1912; de- 
bate on H. R. 1671: 

Palo Alto, Cal., February 5, 191':. 
Hon. Wm. Sulzer, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 
To incorporate a clause establishing in fur-seal bill a close season prohibiting killing 
of superfluous males would do no good to herd, but would kill treaty. No one knows 
this better than the pelagic sealers' lobbv, which for 20 vears has been led by Henry 
W. Elliott. 

David Starr Jordan. 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL. 



David Starr Jordan, 

Stanford University, Cal. 
Dear Sir: Your letter of the 6th instant 
has been duly received. With regard to 
that appearance of my track chart in your 
report of 1896, you seem to be not quite 
clear in your mind as to how it got in there 
as it did. Perhaps the following state- 
ment of fact may help you to know its 
publication there without that credit 
given to me as its author which is indis- 
putably mine. 

* * * # 

With regard for the "rights" of those 
Victorian sea wolves, I hope that they 
will never get a penny for their rotting 
vessels or then "good will. " They have 
had far, far too much already at the ex- 
pense of humanity and decency. Let 
their vessels rot, and let their owners rot 
with them. 

Very truly, yours. 

Henry W. Elliott. 



Jordan reports thai the Rus- 
sians killed males and females 
alike — no discrimination : 



Russian management. — * * * Un- 
der the earlier years of its regime (Russian 
American Co.), however, the seals were 
indiscriminately slaughtered, females as 
well as males, * * *. (Fur Seal In- 
vestigations, Part 1, J898. p. 102.) 



But Bishop Yeniaminov, who 
spent the season of 1825 on St. 
Paul Island, denies Jordan's re- 
port. 

[Translated by Dr. Leoiihard Stejneger of Dr. Jor- 
dan's party.] 

The taking of fur seals commences in 
the latter days of September. * * *. 
The sikatchie and the females having 
been removed, the others are carefully 
driven to the place where they are to be 
killed, sometimes more than 10 versts 
distance * * *. 

When brought to the killing grounds the 
seals are rested for an hour or more, ac- 
cording to circumstances, and then killed 
with a club. 



256 



FUR-SEAL HERD OP ALASKA. 



Jordan declares that Lembkey 
is not able to see things correctly 
and report: 

What I meant by the statement that 
"the ne id of trained supervision is forci- 
bly shown by the present confusion and 
doubt as to present conditions of the rook- 
eries" is wall shown by reference to Mr. 
Lembkey's report for the past year. The 
one important subject brought out by 
this report is the fact of a remarkable 
diminution of adult male life. He finds 
the reserve of idle bulls small. He de- 
ducesfrom this a "scarcity "of bulk. The 
bulls are said to be "amiable" because 
"overtaxed." On certain rookeries they 
have ' ' lostcontrolof thebreeding grounds, ' ' 
with the result that the bachelors are 
"hauling among the cows." He states 
that he is sure "all the cows were served, " 
but he finds that the bulls "are not pres- 
ent in sufficient numbers to maintain a 
first-class rookery service." 

If this is true, it is a serious matter and 
needs careful looking after. In our rec- 
ommendations of 1896-97 we classed as first 
and mostimportant among the subjects to 
be determined by the naturalist to be 
placed in charge of the herd a "determi- 
nation of the proportion of malas necessary 
to attend to the needs of the female breed- 
ing herd." Attention was called to the 
face that this was a question that could 
not be "determined in a single season, 
nor in two, possibly not in five." It 
is a question that can only be settled 
by a trained naturalist and investigator. 
All that Mr. Lembkey has contributed to 
this are certain superficial facts and certain 
deductions which may or may not be of 
value . The > are as a matter of fact merely 
a reecho of very similar deductions made 
by Mr. Henry W. Elliott in 1890. Mr. 
Lembkey's report settles nothing and 
leaves only "confusion and doubt." 
(D. S. Jordan to President Roosevelt, 
Jan. 16, 1906, Appendix A., pp. 328-332, 
June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp., Dept. Com. 
and Labor.) 



Of those 1 year old, the males are sepa- 
rated from the females and killed, while 
the latter are driven carefully back to the 
beach. (Veniaminov, Russian killing on 
St. Paul Island, 1825-1834; Fur Seal In- 
vestigations, Part 3, p. 222, 1898.) 

Lembkey cites a long list of 
Jardan's errors of observation, 
and declares Jordan a failure: 

Scientific supervision a failure. — In the 
light of tnese statements of the efforts of 
scientists to prevent the decrease of seals 
by the application of methods on land 
which have been demonstrated unmis- 
takably faulty, Dr. Jordan's dictum that 
the present need of these rookeries is the 
"trained supervision" which these scien- 
tists afford is open to contradiction. As a 
matter of fact, every suggestion made by 
scientists who have visited the island, 
outside the scope of scientific research, 
and designed to change existing methods 
on the islands, has resulted in failure. 
(W. I. Lembkey to Secretary Commerce 
and Labor, Feb'. 8, 1906, Appendix A., pp. 
334-344, June 24, 1911, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



FUR-SEAL HETJD OF ALASKA. 



257 



Jordan again emphasizes the 
"need" of a trained naturalist to 
ascertain the real facts — 

I wish to emphasize again that in recom- 
mending the transfer of the fur-seal mat- 
ter to the Bureau of Fisheries I had in 
mind the fact that this bureau could pro- 
vide the scientific inspection, and control 
necessary. I do not wish to embarras the 
Secretary with suggestions as to the de- 
tails of administration of the bureau under 
his charge. This would not be pertinent. 
If expert knowledge and supervision 
could be brought to bear on the control 
of the herd through any other method of 
administration than the one proposed the 
essential point would be met. It will be 
noted that in my memorandum only two 
of the four agents need be naturalists or 
have any connection with the Bureau of 
Fisheries. The addition of st naturalist 
to the present staff would answer the pur- 
pose if he had power to carry out his plans. 
(Appendix A: Jordan to President Roose- 
velt, Jan. 16, 1906, pp. 328-332; H. Com. 
Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 
1911.) 



Jordan declares that the folly 
and injury of the "seal corral'' 
were not his idea, or of his order. 

The plans of fencing and branding the 
seals were suggestions of earlier investiga- 
tors which the commission of 1896-97 
merely tested as a part of its duty. They 
wore expected to assist only in the dis- 
couraging of pelagic sealing should other 
means of prohibiting it fail. It is true 
thai many suggestions have been liar e i 
of practical results, but others arising 
from scientific Bources, as the control of the 
parasitic worm, might ho made fruitful 
under competent direction. Other ways 
of improving conditions on the rookeries 
would suggest themselves to a trained in- 
vestigator. (I). S. Jordan to President 
Roosevelt: Jan. 16, 1906. Appendix A; 
pp. 328-332: June 24, 1911. II. Com. Exp. 
Dcpt. Coin, and Labor.) 



But Lcmbkey puts a "trained''' 
naturahst's finding of "fact" up 
against Jordan. 

On one occasion a celebrated naturalist, 
walking on the rookeries at Northeast 
Point, discovered what he supposed to 
be a number of dead seal cows and re- 
ported it to the Treasury agent in charge 
of St. Paul Island. The Treasury agent 
telephoned to the watchman at Northeast 
Point and ordered an investigation, and 
was shortly after amused by a report from 
the watchman that the dead animals sup- 
posed to be seal cows were in fact sea-lion 
pups and not fur seals at all. The story 
is repeated here not with the intention of 
ridiculing anyone, but for the purpose of 
showing that in matters pertaining to seal 
life practical experience is often of greater 
importance than abstract biological knowl- 
edge. 

The foregoing facts are not adduced for 
the purpose of attaching discredit to any- 
one. Their citation here is excusable 
only in showing that, instead of the seal 
herds suffering from any lack of practical 
direction by biologists, every possible sug- 
gestion that could be made by as eminent 
a body of scientists as can be gathered in 
this country was adopted, fairly tried, 
and resulted in each case in the abandon- 
ment of the idea as impractical, if not 
positively dangerous. In the light of 
these facts the position assumed by Dr. 
Jordan that the need of such trained 
supervision of the herd is clearly shown 
is plainly untenable. (Appendix A: 
Lembkey to Secretary Commerce and 
Labor, Feb. 8, 1906, p. 339; H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor, June 24, 1911.) 

But Lembkey says that Jordan 
approved and directed this work 
of folly and injury. 

Mr. Licmbkey. 2. A method was sought 
by the commission for the prevention on 
land of the killing of seals at sea and the 
redriving of ineligibles. The plan adopt- 
ed was the erection by the natives, under 
direction of the agents, of about 4 miles of 
wire fencing around a salt lagoon and a 
fresh-water lake on St. Paid. Into these 
all bachelors rejected from the 1 illing field 
were to be driven. After the 1st of Au- 
gust drives were to be made, also from 
the hauling grounds, and the animals ob- 
tained to be incarcerated in the inclosures 
without food for as long a period as pos- 
sible, thereby reducing by thousands the 
available number of animals from which 
the pelagic sealers made their catches. 

In evolving this theory, no account 
was taken by the scientists of the fact 



21588—13- 



-17 



258 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



thai the Eur seal is a creature wholly of 
instinct, and is not able to adjust itself 
to any new conditions which prevent it 
from following the course crystallized into 
habit by generations of reiterated action. 
The theory of herding these seals involved 
the necessity of confining them in places 
which, under normal conditions, they 
would never frequent, and for this reason 
could not be put into successful practice. 
The result of the inclosure of seals was 
disastrous. The animals were impounded 
by thousands. Once inside of the in- 
closure, finding their return to the rook- 
eries impeded, the animals began follow- 
ing the inside line of fence, searching for 
egress. A path 20 feet wide inside the 
entire length of lagoon fence was worn 
bare of vegetation by these traveling seals. 
This movement was continued until many 
died of exhaustion. Over 20 carcasses 
were picked up in one day. They also 
fell into holes, from which they could not 
extricate themselves, and perished. 

That greater numbers of these impris- 
oned animals did not die was due solely 
to the fact that they could not be confined 
in these inclosures over a day or two. 
Some climbed over the fence, displaying 
considerable agility in so doing; others, 
by main strength, tore holes in the stout 
wire netting and so escaped ; others took 
advantage of depressions in the ground 
and forced their way out under the fence. 
I saw one great bull insert his nose among 
the wire meshes and by a magnificent dis- 
play of the wonderful power of his neck 
muscles tear the wire as though it were 
rotten yarn. Emerging through the 
opening thus made, and catching sight 
of his comrades on the inside of the fence, 
he as readily tore another hole through 
the netting and stupidly rejoined his 
fellows on the inside. Had the wire net- 
ting been a tight board fence, the efforts 
of the imprisoned seals to escape would 
have resulted in the death, through ex- 
haustion, of all confined. 

These attempts at incarceration were 
carried on through several years, resulting 
in every case in the death of some animals 
imprisoned and the early escape of the 
remainder by their own efforts. 

These facts outlined above have been 
reported to the department heretofore 
only by word of mouth, owing to a reluc- 
tance on the part of the agents to furnish 
any documentary evidence which could 
be' used by Great Britain in any future 
arbitration' proceedings that the death of 
seals was due in any way to methods prac- 
ticed on land outside of the regular killing 
of bachelors. (Hearing No. 14 pp. 945, 
946, July 27. 1912. H. Com. Exp. Dept, 
C. and L.) 



FUR-SEAL HEED OF ALASKA. 



259 



Dr. Jordan denies his responsi- 
bility for the fencing and branding 
fiasco. 

Leland Stanford Junior 

University, 
Office of the President. 
Stanford University, Cal., 
January 16, 1906. 
Hon. Theodore Roosevelt, 

The White House, Washington, D. C. 
The plans of fencing and branding the 
seals were suggestions of earlier investiga- 
tors which the commission of 1896-97 
merely tested as a part of its duty. They 
were expected to assist only in the dis- 
couraging of pelagic sealing should other 
means of prohibiting it fail. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

David Starr Jordan. 



Jordan declares that his 
' ' scourge " of the fur seal has been 
overlooked by incompetent men 



That the herd should be put in charge of 
a competent naturalist was the sole impor- 
tant recommendation of the commission of 
1896-97, as will be seen by reference to 
Chapter XIX, pages 191-193, of the first 
volume of the commission's final report. 

It may be that I have underestimated 
the completeness of the reports of the local 
agents. As I look over those of Mr. Lemb- 
key for 1904 and 1905 I find that they are 
filled with important data. He has evi- 
dently done his work well. The figures 
he gives regarding the condition of the 
breeding herd as shown by the compara- 
tive counts of the rookeries are instructive 
and show the continued decline of the 
herd under pelagic sealing. As I look 
through the reports, however, I see no 
mention whatever of the effects of the 
parasitic worm Uncinaria, which we found 
in 1896-97 to be responsible for the death 
of upward 12,000 pups, or practically 10 
per cent of the birth rate of that year. 
This was one of the most important discov- 
eries made by our commission. It is a 
destructive agency which should be 
fought. (D . S . Jordan to President Roose- 
velt, Jan. 16, 1906. Appendix A, pp. 
328-332, June 24, 1911. H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But the official record declares 
that these twin follies were or- 
dered by him. 

St. Pauls Island, Alaska. 

Monday, August 2, 1897. — Dr. Jordan 
sent five of his men, under Mr. Murray's 
charge, to lay out and dig post holes for 
the fence around the lagoon. 

Wednesday, August 4, 1897. — Mr. Mur- 
ray's men who were digging post holes for 
the lagoon fence have almost completed 
the job. * * * From present indica- 
tions Dr. Jordan and his able assistants 
will leave very little to be looked for in 
that direction in the future. 

Wednesday, August 18, 1897. — Messrs. 
Warren and Farmer busy all day endeav- 
oring to put the electrical branding ma- 
chine in order. * * * Messrs. Farmer 
and Warren are hopeful of making it a 
grand success. (Official entries in the 
Journal of the Government Agent in 
charge of the seal islands, St. Pauls 
Village.) 

But Lembkey has furnished 
abundant competent evidence 
that Jordan's "scourge" is a 
myth to-day. 

Mr. Elliott. The sandworm, Uncina- 
ria, "scourge" discovered by Jordan in 
1897 is like the "trampled pups" of his 
"discovery" in 1896, a sporadic trouble, 
which has never been noted on the islands 
prior to 1891 or seen there since 1898. 
This I declared to be the case in 1872- 
1874, and again in 1890. 

The Bureau of Fisheries in 1906 tried to 
find it, as follows (p. 663, Appendix A): 

"In order, however, to ascertain the 
latest developments in seal life, Mr. H. C. 
Marsh, an expert in the diseases of fishes 
in the Bureau of Fisheries, was sent by 
Secretary Metcalf to the islands in the 
summer of 1906. Mr. Marsh arrived on 
the islands early in June of that year and 
remained there until the middle of the 
following August. He was rendered 
every assistance by the resident agents in 
his investigation . 

"Dr. Jordan, in commenting on the re- 
port of Mr.W.I. Lembkey, agent in charge 
of seal fisheries (S. Doc. No. 98, 59th 
Cong., 1st sess.), contended that the num- 
ber of bulls reported did not comprise all 
the bulls present, and in his memoran- 
dum he referred to the fact that deaths 
among seal pups due to Uncinaria, an in- 
testinal parasite, were not reported. 

"Mr. Marsh had instructions to investi- 
gate these two points particularly. 

"In the matter of bulls, Mr. Marsh car- 
ried maps of the rookeries, and on these he 



260 FUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



depicted the positions of the bulls found, 
with the exact number present when the 
respective counts were made. The num- 
ber found was fewer than reported the pre- 
ceding year, and verified the counts of the 
agent at that time. 

"In regard to Uncinaria, Mr. Marsh, al- 
though on the rookeries daily from June 6 
until July 28, found not a single case. At 
the latter date the further disturbance of 
the rookeries was prohibited, by order of 
Mr. Sims, on account of the activity dis- 
played by the Japanese sealers in the vi- 
cinity of the islands. No naturalist has 
since visited the Pribilofs." 

The last search for this "scourge" of 
Jordan's invention was made by Assistant 
Agent Jame3 Judge, who, in his report for 
1909, dated March 8, 1910, says (p. 1173, 
Appendix A): 

"Early in October, assisted by the na- 
tives, I made the regular enumeration of 
dead pups, a detailed account of which 
was forwarded Mr. Lembkey October 8, 
1909. Dr. Mills and I autopsied a number 
of the dead from each rookery, the total 
aggregating 23. In making these post- 
mortems, the stomachs, livers, hearts, and 
lungs were cut into, and about 1 foot of the 
large and from 3 to 5 feet of the small in- 
testine carefully examined. The autop- 
sies showed that death resulted in 20 cases 
from starvation, in 1 from pneumonia, and 
in 1 from some cause unknown. One of 
pups autopsied was killed because found 
suffering and nearly blind from a disease 
of the eyes. The only parasites discov- 
ered were small threadlike worms found 
in the trachea of a pup from the reef. 
These parasites, together with the diseased 
eyes above noted, were sent to Mr. Chi- 
chester for further investigation. Dr. 
Stiles, to whom the worms were forwarded 
determined that they were a new species 
of the genus Halarchne." (Hearing No. 
14, p. 945, July 27, 1912, H. Com. Exp. 
Dept. C. and L.) 



PUR-SEAL HERD OF ALASKA. 



261 



Jordan asserts that the benefits 
of his work in 1896-97 "as a 
trained naturalist" have been 
lost by Lembkey. 

The essential point is the expert study 
and inspection. After our exhaustive 
investigations of 1896-97, I made what I 
considered the one important recom- 
mendation — that the herd be placed in 
charge of a competent naturalist. Now, 
after eight years, during which much of 
the value of our work has been lost 
through failure to follow it up properly, I 
again make the earnest recommendation 
that the fur-seal herd be placed in charge 
of a trained naturalist. (D. S. Jordan to 
President Roosevelt, Jan. 16, 1906, Ap- 
pendix A, pp. 328-334, June 24, 1911. 
H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and Labor.) 



But Lembkey proves that noth- 
ing was lost, except for the gain 
of the public interests at stake. 



'■'>. The branding, of female pups: As 
the catch of the pelagic sealers consists 
mainly of females, especially in Bering 
Sea, it was thought by the Jordan com- 
mission that any means adopted whereby 
the value of the skins so taken could be 
impaired would serve to deal the sealing 
industry a heavy blow. 

From this idea the practice of branding 
female pups was evolved . 

It consisted in herding the newborn 
pups on the several rookeries, segregating 
all females therein, and so searing their 
hides with red-hot irons that the hair 
follicles under the brand would be 
destroyed and the branded area be 
denuded of fur. During the year 1896 
branding operations were carried on with 
vigor. Thousands of nurslings were 
branded with at least one brand, and a 
large number with two and sometimes 
three brands. They continued, but with 
less rigor, until 1903, when stopped by 
order of the department. 

The main reason why branding fe- 
males was not a success was that if the 
animal were seared so thoroughly as to 
destroy the commercial value of the pelt, 
the animal would die from the effects of 
the branding; if not branded in this 
wholesale manner, the value of the skin 
was not affected materially. In either 
case no appreciable injury to the pelagic 
catch resulted. 

How many pups permanently in- 

jured through branding, and thereby lost 
their lives in the water through inability 
to withstand the hardships of their first 
migration can never be known. The In- 
dians along the Aleutian chain reported 
numbers of pups as being so injured by 
branding as to render their capture by 
bidarki hunters an easy matter. These 
reports, while creating a deep impression 
among outsiders that great injury to the 
herd through branding was being wrought, 
were not susceptible of confirmation. 
Complete statistics of the number of 
branded skins contained in the catches 
of the pelagic schooners are not obtain- 
able. The number of such skins in the 
whole catches for 1899 and 1900 did not 
approximate over 75 skins each year. It 
was reported that the brands on these 
skins did not injure the value of the pelt 
over the amount of $1. (W. J. Lembkey 
to Secretary Com. and Labor, Feb. 8, 
1906, Appendix A, pp. 338, 339. June 24, 
1911. H. Com. Exp. Dept. Com. and 
Labor, i 



4i 



Treatment ^ate e NoS e 8 S,U,I,OXide 

f w r ? B f„ erva,l ' onTech no'ogiesi 



